On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:55:10AM -0200, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel wrote: > Considering that this is probably a "language misunderstanding" > from a non-native speaker (myself), when you say "there weren't any > candidates for additional DAMs" that means (from what you heard, of > course):
Well, /when/ I heard is more important; it's been a long time at this point. > a) DAMs don't think there is somebody ready/prepared to join DAM team > c) People volunteered but they are not ready/prepared to join DAM team DAMs are the only ones judging whether someone's ready/prepared, so these are the same. > b) Nobody volunteered (or showed interested) in join DAM team I don't know if anyone's volunteered; I was more meaning that there wasn't anyone -- again, last I heard -- who the DAMs would want to encourage to volunteer. If the DAMs aren't already confident someone would make a good candidate, then without some way of training people to be good DAMs there's not much chanceof someone who volunteers out of the blue getting anywhere. And without any way for people outside of FD and DAM to see who's doing a good job of AMing, there's not much chance for anyone else to make an informed independent judgement. To put it another way: we can get an acceptable candidate either by finding someone who James and Joerg are both basically already happy with, or we can have some process to take people who they're not already happy with and end up with them as DAMs -- which might involve training them somehow to the point that they are clearly capable, or the DPL making a delegation to promote some people who are capable but not clearly so, and in spite of the existing delegates preferences, or a similar GR, or something else. Either way it's going to involve a chunk of pain, not least for the candidates. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
