Re: Problem application
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 05:50:27AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > I would prefer to have an established policy that is understood and
> > enforced by the Application Managers, so this doesn't have to become
> > "trouble" for the DAM.
> >
> > Should we have a proceedure for this? Something where the charges are
> > presented to the admin team and we determine by vote whether to continue
> > with the application. Another alternative would be to present the evidence
> > to the FD and DAM and give them "authority" to decide. As another option,
> > the applicant should probably be offered the chance to delete his
> > application, rather than go through a "trial" that would be somewhat
> > public.
> It is a difficult one because AMs are not setup to do this sort of
> check. I would also be reluctant to have a step like this in because
> I really do not know if my NMs are good Internet citizens. There is
> no way for me to check either.
>
> The purpose of the AM system is to reduce the load off the DAM for the
> procedural stuff, checking wether or not someone is a slimeball is not
> something AMs can do or should do.
I'm not expecting us to search out the "slime", but when the information
is provided by outside sources we need a method to deal with it.
>
> However if AMs have some information about an applicant then I would
> immediately email at least the DAM about it. I think this is more a
> duty of being a Debian developer then specifically an AM duty.
I don't see any reason for the AM to waste their time processing an
application that the DAM has already said he will reject. Contacting the
DAM is premature, although I have already done so. (That's where I got the
idea he would reject this application)
>
> > Folks, it is exactly this kind of application that we are here to deflect,
> > so we want a clear cut proceedure for doing this. All ideas welcome.
> I believed and still believe that this was the duty of the Debian Admin
> people or the DSA.
>
But I'm the one with the applicant, not the DAM. If I want the DAM to deal
with it, I must process the application. I'm not willing to do that with
this applicant.
There are several questions here that need discussion.
1. Should the AM keep the name of the applicant confidential?
2. Should the AM present the "evidence" to the group, or simply decide on
his own?
3. If the AM is to make this decission on their own, what is the level of
"slime" required to reject the applicant?
I'm not willing to contact this applicant until I know how do deal with
him.
I suggest that the first contact be one that tells the applicant that
there are "charges" against them, allowing them to defend themselves from
individuals who are just trying to make trouble for them.
I'm not expecting us to seek out such information, but when it comes our
way, we _must_ act on that knowledge and not simply pawn the problem off
on the DAM.
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: