On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 04:12:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> More likely, the implication is that giving someone the necessary write
> access to LDAP is *equivalent* to giving them root access on the Debian
> servers.
No, only if the person is allowed to write the uidNumber entry.
> You'd ne
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 12:56:36PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> Steve Langasek skrev:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:01:39PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> >> Andreas Barth skrev:
> >>> * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
> And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek skrev:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:01:39PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
>> Andreas Barth skrev:
>>> * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I
approve person X, let
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:01:39PM +0200, Tomas Fasth wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Andreas Barth skrev:
> > * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
> >>And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I approve person X,
> >>let's check his box, but
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:35:24PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Andrew Suffield]
> > How about 'not second guessing people without cause'?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I am not sure how this comment is connected
> to the message you replied to.
It was an answer to the quoted question.
>
[Andrew Suffield]
> How about 'not second guessing people without cause'?
Sounds like a good idea. I am not sure how this comment is connected
to the message you replied to.
I tried to avoid second guessing you, by asking the following
question:
You seem to assume that all rejections are corr
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 04:36:28PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Do you have any good arguments why it isn't the other way around, that
> some of the rejections get rid of people which could have done a great
> job as a debian developer?
How about 'not second guessing people without cause'?
Olaf van der Spek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 8/2/05, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Currently a report passes through FD, then to DAM-not-authorised, and
>> finally to DAM-authorised. What if these groups would be melted into
>> one, and each member could take an incoming appli
On 8/2/05, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently a report passes through FD, then to DAM-not-authorised, and
> finally to DAM-authorised. What if these groups would be melted into
> one, and each member could take an incoming application, review it, and
> either reject or approve t
On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:24 +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> The FD checks their applications
> so as not to waste the DAM's time reviewing bogus ones, and the DAM
> checks them to filter out people who shouldn't get in.
Your statement rests on the assuption that somehow the DAM's time is
more valu
Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [Andrew Suffield]
>> AMs aren't much better, as a group. The FD checks their applications so
>> as not to waste the DAM's time reviewing bogus ones, and the DAM checks
>> them to filter out people who shouldn't get in. The reason why we need
>> bot
[Andrew Suffield]
> AMs aren't much better, as a group. The FD checks their applications
> so as not to waste the DAM's time reviewing bogus ones, and the DAM
> checks them to filter out people who shouldn't get in. The reason
> why we need both these checks is most simply explained by pointing
> o
It's a pretty theory but it fails to account for reality.
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 12:18:08PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Tue, August 2, 2005 10:28, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too few AMs
>
> While I can agree that there are too few AMs, the whole proce
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
Indeed to do THE WORK it is not necessary to be a DD. It is just that
for upload of packages into debian non-DD needs to interact with a
sponsor. Also administrativa like voting can't be done by non-DD.
Besides that I don't see any difficulties as to do packaging and
to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andreas Barth skrev:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
>
>>And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I approve person X,
>>let's check his box, but I'll add the account at some point later on (this
>>takes weeks on aver
Em Ter, 2005-08-02 às 04:46 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko escreveu:
> Then I have a better idea... It seems to me that any DD-professional is
> capable
> of performing AM duties, isn't it? Then I would say it might make sense
> to send an announcement to any DD with experience over X month and Y
> pa
On Tue, August 2, 2005 13:44, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
>> And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I approve person X,
>> let's check his box, but I'll add the account at some point later on
>> (this
>> takes weeks on average). When you
i tried once or twice to volunteer, but i failed... i don't remember why
just my two cents
-- Fred
On 8/2/05, Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
> > And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I approve person X,
> > let's check
* Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 13:41]:
> And even then, appearently the DAM works like this: I approve person X,
> let's check his box, but I'll add the account at some point later on (this
> takes weeks on average). When you check the box you might add the account
> aswell when you'
On Tue, August 2, 2005 13:11, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> - a good review by an existing developer (advocate)
>
> It would be nice if all advocates would actually check that the
> applicant is apt to become a developer: The high number of rejections
> (by the AM) shows that this doesn't work.
"Thijs Kinkhorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, August 2, 2005 10:28, Andreas Barth wrote:
>> And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too few AMs
> While I can agree that there are too few AMs, the whole process itself
> seems pretty bureaucratic with room for improvement. Once you've compl
* Thijs Kinkhorst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 12:19]:
> And why is approval by DAM not equal to account creation? It seems to me
> that the account creation step could be fully automated: checking the box
> "approved by DAM" could trigger an insert into the LDAP database thereby
> creating the acco
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Then I would say it might make sense to send an announcement to any
>>> DD with experience over X month and Y packages maintained if they
>>> want to be just considered for AM process.
>> Right, because *new* developers have no idea about the NM pr
On Tue, August 2, 2005 10:28, Andreas Barth wrote:
> And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too few AMs
While I can agree that there are too few AMs, the whole process itself
seems pretty bureaucratic with room for improvement. Once you've completed
the AM stage, this still has to happen:
- AM ch
> > Then I would say it might make sense to send an announcement to any
> > DD with experience over X month and Y packages maintained if they
> > want to be just considered for AM process.
> Right, because *new* developers have no idea about the NM process and
> just need the reminder that it exist
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:28:08AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>>> Now I'm not sure exactly how hard an AM's work is
>> Yes, one could see that.
> So, Andreas is making the point that it is good to keep "silent" AMs on
> the list with hope that some
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:28:08AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> on 5 applicants per month. And, BTW, is it not our problem to have too
Well, I can just say such AMs a big "Thank you" :-)
> few AMs and you propose reducing their numbers even more? Even an AM
> > Now I'm not sure exactly how hard a
Nigel Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I think get a couple of active developers that have been
> around a little while that maintain a few packages and get them into
> the AM role, and move some of the AMs into a DAM role...
Right, because these people normally have loads of time to
Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:31:36PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
>> Also: say that if an AM/DAM does not process x applications a month
>> (reasonably fair amount (say 5) and allow for vaccations/sickness etc)
>> then they may face removal, as Yaroslav Halchenko
* Nigel Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050802 05:31]:
> Also: say that if an AM/DAM does not process x applications a month
> (reasonably fair amount (say 5) and allow for vaccations/sickness etc)
> then they may face removal
I don't know if you've every worked as AM, but if you have other duties
in D
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 02:03:09AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > A Debian account isn't that essential. I had packages in Debian for
> > at least a year before I was invited to join the project. The
> > additional 11 months I waited in the NM queue didn't stop me doing
> > useful work.
> you seem
On 02/08/05, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:31:36PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> > On 02/08/05, Stepan Golosunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> > > > Nothing. It was just a question, as Nikit
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 10:42:17PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have been in the whole NM process for more than 13 months now. I
> > spent around 6 months with my AM, around another 6 to be a
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 03:31:36PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote:
> On 02/08/05, Stepan Golosunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> > > Nothing. It was just a question, as Nikita sounds to be a female name,
> > > but as I'm not sure abo
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:19:46PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:51:53PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> >>> I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> >>> sufficient quantity of them
On 02/08/05, Stepan Golosunov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> > Nothing. It was just a question, as Nikita sounds to be a female name,
> > but as I'm not sure about it, I was just interested. At least for me, a
> > Hungarian, it so
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Nothing. It was just a question, as Nikita sounds to be a female name,
> but as I'm not sure about it, I was just interested. At least for me, a
> Hungarian, it sounds like a female name.
In Russia, Nikita is (exclusively) male
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Moreno Garza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have been in the whole NM process for more than 13 months now. I
> spent around 6 months with my AM, around another 6 to be approved by
> the DAM and I'm waiting now, since a month ago, for my account
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:51:53PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>>> I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
>>> sufficient quantity of them to cover all current DD applicants...
>> No.
> Indeed - I counted "grave stones
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 15:55 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> >
> > I'm already waiting for DAM approval for almost 6 months, and I'm
> > ready to
> > wait more (after all, there is a psyhological difference between a day
>
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 15:55 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> I'm already waiting for DAM approval for almost 6 months, and I'm
> ready to
> wait more (after all, there is a psyhological difference between a day
> and
> a month, but not between 6 and 12 months).
>
> The only thing that make
On 20050801T135912-0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Maybe Laszlo wants to know which would be the proper pronoun reference.
"Ey" is good for everybody, even the genderqueer. :)
(Tip: ey talks to em about eir stuff)
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Debian developer
http://kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani
On 20050801T153347-0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> So there are 12 AMs which are listed and which do not carry any load,
> although the load is there and knocking the door :-)
I don't know how many of those are in my position: I am practically a
newbie as an AM and as such I will carry little we
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:59:12PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> > > (Are you a girl maybe?)
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything? Stop being male-chauvanistic.
> >
>
> Maybe Laszlo wants to know which would be the proper pronoun reference.
> It is better to ask and be certain t
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:51:53PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> > I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> > sufficient quantity of them to cover all current DD applicants...
> No.
Indeed - I counted "grave stones" as well. So there are 61 registered
AMs. And just
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 08:24:30PM +0200, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 11:35 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>>> Hi Nikita,
>>> (Are you a girl maybe?)
>> What does that have to do with anything? Stop being
>male-chauvanistic.
> No
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 11:35 -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>
> > Hi Nikita,
> > (Are you a girl maybe?)
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Stop being male-chauvanistic.
Nothing. It was just a question, as Nikita sounds to be a female name,
but
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
>
> > Hi Nikita,
> > (Are you a girl maybe?)
>
> What does that have to do with anything? Stop being male-chauvanistic.
>
Maybe Laszlo wants to know which would be the proper pronoun ref
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I notice that some of the statistics at http://nm.debian.org/ don't make
> sense.
> Mode Median Average Max
>CountDaysDaysDaysDays
> New Maintainers processed
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 15:23 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> On the very day I got my account, Frontdesk asked me in IRC whether I
> want to become AM. That speaks against that theory. :)
Apart from that it's not just a theory. ;)
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PRO
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Laszlo Boszormenyi wrote:
> Hi Nikita,
> (Are you a girl maybe?)
What does that have to do with anything? Stop being male-chauvanistic.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:03:44PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I notice that some of the statistics at http://nm.debian.org/ don't make
> sense.
They are in fact complete nonsense, because of the way they're
calculated. I keep meaning to do something about it but never have
time. As it stands, the
I notice that some of the statistics at http://nm.debian.org/ don't make
sense.
Mode Median Average Max
CountDaysDaysDaysDays
New Maintainers processed 720 347 347 343 343
The mode can'
Hi Nikita,
(Are you a girl maybe?)
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 15:55 +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> The only thing that makes me feel uncomfortable now is that I'm not able to
> upload packages that fix bugs timely - communication with sponsor leads to
> very long overhead - probably because of va
Hi,
* Nico Golde ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 15:21]:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-01 15:16]:
> > * Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 14:02]:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * Yaroslav Halchenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 12:20
Hi,
* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-01 15:16]:
> * Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 14:02]:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Yaroslav Halchenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 12:20]:
> > > > I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessar
> Awaiting AM assignment 140 days
> Awaiting DAM Approval184 days
I'm already waiting for DAM approval for almost 6 months, and I'm ready to
wait more (after all, there is a psyhological difference between a day and
a month, but not between 6 and 12 months).
The only thing that makes me fee
* Neil McGovern ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 14:02]:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Yaroslav Halchenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 12:20]:
> > > I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> > > sufficient quantity of them to cover all curre
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:58:55PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Yaroslav Halchenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 12:20]:
> > I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> > sufficient quantity of them to cover all current DD applicants...
>
> We would need more good AMs, we hav
* Yaroslav Halchenko ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050801 12:20]:
> I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> sufficient quantity of them to cover all current DD applicants...
We would need more good AMs, we have too few.
Cheers,
Andi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Yaroslav Halchenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I'm not sure if any additional AMs are necessary -- there is a
> sufficient quantity of them to cover all current DD applicants...
No.
Marc
--
BOFH #406:
Bad cafeteria food landed all the sysadmins in the hospital.
pgpgHBZnDYZXM.pgp
Descri
61 matches
Mail list logo
