On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 07:48:10AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 01:51:43PM -0500, Ghost1227 wrote:
> >> Over the last few months, I have noticed that TU Swiergot has neglected
> >> his packages in community. I first noticed this with the cinelerra-cv
> >> package which was several months out of date and using the now-defunct
> >> cvs repo (cinelerra-cv switched to git two months ago). I posted a
> >> cinelerra-cv-git package to the AUR and attempted several times to
> >> contact him. Two months went by and I got no reply from any of the
> >> several addresses he has, so I discussed the situation with another TU,
> >> then updated his cinelerra-cv package and sent him another email
> >> notifying him of the update. I have since taken a look through his
> >> packages and the bugtracker. He has several packages marked out of date
> >> (and some have comments explaining fixes), as well as a handful of open
> >> bugs on the bugtracker. Since I have been unable to contact him through
> >> any means, I propose orphaning his packages so that more available TUs
> >> can take over the responsibility for them. There are several that I would
> >> be happy to take over (assaultcube, cinelerra-cv, cube, dosemu,
> >> fcrackzip, nexuiz, qemu-launcher, stegdetect, steghide, supertux and
> >> maybe a few others), and some of his packages (including some of the ones
> >> i'll take) should be dropped to the AUR.
> >> Discuss
> > Yeah sounds good. TUs should be just as accountable as regular users. If
> > he hasn't responded to emails about outdated packages, let others adopt
> > those packages. Does swiergot appear active according to TU votes?
> I think you are the only person who can tell this since we switched to
> voting on the AUR. Care to look?
You can kind of check yourself with the new features. Yes swiergot did
vote in the last proposal (Changing [community] management system).
> > Well, actually the bylaws state that we remove TUs only if they have
> > prevented a vote from reaching quorum. But so far all votes have made
> > it. So we can keep him for now if he does reappear.
> Relevant section from the bylaws:
> If a TU becomes inactive without declaring it, "disappears", someone must
> motion for their removal for reason of unwarranted and undeclared
> inactivity, and the normal procedure for the motion is followed.
I meant the automatic removal procedure. But yeah if someone is
uncomfortable with swiergot's scarceness he or she is encouraged to
motion for removal.