Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> writes:
[...]
> my (or not only mine, but I like them) ideas about that:
>
> 1) NM has to become a FIFO at each step: AM assigning, DAM
> verification, ... because this is *predictable*. If someone does
> not deserves to have an AM assigned or asks for time (because he
> takes a trip over the world, or any other reason), those have to be
> put in a side queue, or have a "frozen" attribute, that makes the
> time they have spent in a particular queue be stopped (and of
> course, queues have to be sorted by time passed in that queue).
It already works that way, just without an explicit "frozen" attribute.
> That looks stupid, but for the guy who is there since 4 or 5
> monthes, I can assure you it's not. I spent a whole month on the
> last damn line of the « Applicants waiting for Front Desk
> approval » step on [2]. And it was really a pain to see the queue
> move forward, and see people that were in that step since less time
> that I was go through. That contributes to the bad reputation of NM
> queue a **LOT**.
>
> 2) we should ask NM's to show proofs of their work *before* having an
> AM. I've heard many people speak of asking an applicant to be able
> to show work they have done in debian. Packaging, work in a team,
> whatever. E.g. I've heard proposals where applicant would be asked
> to write a wiki page, with *links* that show their work (bugs
> sorting, RC bug fixes, uploads, works with a sponsor, ...) with
> links to the relevant BTS/PTS/Mail-lists posts/... entries.
The front desk already does these checks before assigning an applicant.
> And a candidate that has not enough to show HAS TO BE PUT ON HOLD.
> If the rule is clear, nobody will complain.
>
> 3) The full process is heavy for AM too. and afaict, if an AM has no
> more time, or wants to step back, the NM he deal with can be slowed
> down a LOT.
>
> ==> I'd suggest that the whole NM process could use a special email
> address, on @newmaint.debian.org for example, that put the mail
> into a mbox that any AM can have access to. So that if a NM
> complains about his AM beeing absent or too slow, everybody can
> *look* at it, and know if the complain is legitimate.
The complaints are all pretty much legitimate.
> this also easy the validating task more incremental, as each NM
> could be followed by many persons. E.g. it would makes really sense
> to have some read-only (viewable only by persons that are involved
> with newmaint work) imap/nntp/... accounts, so that anybody could
> check them when they have time, and eventually report problems even
> before the DAM/FD has to review those applications.
>
> 4) thanks to 3, we could also involve sponsors and DD that work
> regulary with some given NM to his NM-mailbox. If a DD sponsors
> someone, given the time and involvment it represents (I sponsor 3
> persons atm, so I know what I'm speaking of), it does not looks
> that stupid to try to involve those in the application of their
> pupil.
>
> I'm not sure on what they could do, but I'm confident someone more
> used to the NM process could have brilliant ideas about that.
>
> 5) I read Pascal Hakim's mail about what beeing DD means with big
> interest. a short (~50-60 lines) mail should be sent to any
> applicant, explaining that beeing a DD is a big responsability, and
> that the NM queue is not about giving a reward, but about checking
> that the applicant can handle that responsability well. So that
> applicants that are too weak on some points can be sent back to
> that text, and can't pretend they weren't informed in the first
> place.
>
> is that beeing elitist ? certainly. But I don't see any problems in
> beeing elitist. If the process is readable, that the rules are
> clear enough, and the results predictable, then nobody can
> honnestly contest anything very long.
>
> 6) we should NEVER put any restrictions on time of any sorts. the
> point 1) sets the rules: either you are the one that spent the most
> time in that step, and you are the next to be processed, and thanks
> to the wonderful work of FD, you know that will happen.
>
> either you don't qualify, and you will be put on hold (with an
> explanation) or freezed (on your own request).
>
> I'd also suggest that candidates that are in "freeze" or on "hold"
> at any stage could unfreeze/unhold themselves alone, that should
> put them back in the queue where they belong (remember, one stage,
> sorted by ascending time you spent in that stage, hold/freeze time
> substracted). and if you abuse that (e.g. you un-hold yourself
> without improving/solving the reason you were put on hold) that
> could be a reason for expulsion from the NM queue, or putting back
> at the stage 0 or ...
>
> that's in fact a scheduling algorithm. It as a fairness property
> that is vital for the sanity of the queue.
>
> Sorry for the very long mail.
>
> PS: I'd be really interested to work as an AM, and I've not found on
> nm.d.o what I have to do to apply for that...
>
> [1] https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=pierre.habouzit@m4x.org
> [2] https://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php
> --
> ·O· Pierre Habouzit
> ··O madcoder@debian.org
> OOO http://www.madism.org
--
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
Reply to: