On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 03:15:07PM +0600, Judit Foglszinger wrote: > Maybe instead of saying "you shouldn't have done that", > rather explain which parts of questions asked in one specific process > one found sufficient to approve the NM as a DAM and why, > so there is some more orientation and more insight, > what exactly DAM finds important to ask. > > On the other hand given that quite some people find their process > a valuable experience, it would be sad to reduce it to the bare minimum, > as long an AM takes the effort to ensure, that > the NM is not forced to do unnecessary things they rather wouldn't want to do. > (if some stuff is more clearly optional, it might also easier for DAM to skip > it)
Thanks! I like the angle of documenting what was found sufficient, rather than what was not needed. Probably the documentation shouldn't be public, to avoid applicants to build an expectations of a bare minimum work required and then get angry at the AM if the AM feels like asking more than that, but it could be, for example, a monthly post to the am@ alias. Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/634F4BD1E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini <enr...@enricozini.org>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
