On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:13:10PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:10:17AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:52:37AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > > is it really that hard for a "good applicant" to
Brian Russo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:47:21AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:52:32PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good idea to me. But what to do with them? I think that
> > > applicants that have not found an advo
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:10:17AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:52:37AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > > is it really that hard for a "good applicant" to get
> > > advocated within a 4 week period?
> > >
> > > besides, they c
* Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010315 11:10]:
> But then they have to get back to the back of the queue. I was
...
> AM. This way the applicants retain their place in the queue and once
> they get advocated, can be processed quicker.
So everyone who considers becoming a Developer at some p
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:10:17AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:52:37AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> > is it really that hard for a "good applicant" to get
> > advocated within a 4 week period?
> >
> > besides, they can always re-apply
> > once they get advocated.
> >
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:52:37AM -1000, Brian Russo wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:47:21AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:52:32PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > >
> > > Sounds like a good idea to me. But what to do with them? I think that
> > > applicants that
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 07:47:21AM -0500, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:52:32PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like a good idea to me. But what to do with them? I think that
> > applicants that have not found an advocate after, say, 4 weeks should
> > be removed.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:52:32PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me. But what to do with them? I think that
> applicants that have not found an advocate after, say, 4 weeks should
> be removed.
I think that is a bit harsh. My suggestion is to leave them in the
queue,
Craig Small wrote:
> G'day,
> (speaking as the NM website maintainer rather than an AM here)
> Currently the NM system does not reap (delete, remove, hide, flag,
> whatever) applicants that do not have an advocate and have waited
> for a certain amount of time.
>
> I can put a facility in that ru
On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 11:45:45AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> G'day,
> (speaking as the NM website maintainer rather than an AM here)
> Currently the NM system does not reap (delete, remove, hide, flag,
> whatever) applicants that do not have an advocate and have waited
> for a certain amount of t
G'day,
(speaking as the NM website maintainer rather than an AM here)
Currently the NM system does not reap (delete, remove, hide, flag,
whatever) applicants that do not have an advocate and have waited
for a certain amount of time.
I can put a facility in that runs through the list weekly and fin
11 matches
Mail list logo
