Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, MJ Ray wrote: > > Are you (or any other candidates) arguing for an NM-portfolio, a > > document that summarises the applicant in a way that most developers > > could understand why the applicant was given an account, if they saw > > that document? > > We already have that with the short NM report sent to -newmaint.
I disagree. They seem suspiciously formulaic and lack the detail. Compare and contrast http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00004.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00065.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2007/12/msg00070.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/02/msg00002.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/03/msg00000.html -- five different authors, but same strange turns of phrase. (For example, "answered all my questions about the social contract, DFSG, BTS, etc. in a good way" leaps out at me. Not wrong, as such, but that's an unusual way to put it - has any applicant ever been described as answering them "in a bad way"?) > I was mainly thinking of a structured document where all info > that need to be integrated in the LDAP are available (Name, Login, > Alternate email, Keyid, ...) so that a script can take that as input > and do all the job. The report appears to be structured already, even if it's looking like pseudo-English. Would you support adding the extra information needed for LDAP along with replacing the pseudo-English with details needed for easy verification - bug numbers, package names and so on - in a structured way? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
