On 06/11/2018 12.13, Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public wrote:
Yeah, but [community] used to be something completely separated from [extra]. This is less and less the case (numerous packages were moved from [extra] to [community] so that TUs could maintain them for instance). The line between devs and TUs has become quite blurried, and in my opinion who we accept as TU is highly depending on the meaning we have for those repos and roles. I think devs should thus be concerned by the quality of what we have in [community].
Or we should start caring about repo hierarchy again, and keep [core] and [extra] independent.
Here again I would argue that they are devs that have [core] pushing rights, as well as devs that are Master Key holders. So even if you don’t want to write this black on white, this actually means a small group of people have the real control over the distro (technically, Master Key holders could revoke everyone else).
You can argue, but it's simply not true. Any developer has access to [core]. Master key holders aren't considered any better than other developers besides having more duties and no one has ever refused to sign new TU; for every master key holder, there is someone else holding revocation certificate. There is no hierarchy.
Because you think Arch work, we (as some TUs/devs) think they are a number of issues.
Any sort of council would be a big turn-off for me not just now, but also years ago when I joined TU ranks first.
Thanks for your input, and this is the kind of opinions for which I said we should have this discussion here.
Personally I'm not interested in this either and I find it difficult to find anything substantial in Christian's message indicating that discussion should take place on arch-dev-public and not aur-general. I know anthraxx is preparing actual outline but it's really bad way to start off. Bartłomiej