On 01/24/2018 11:18 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> ---
Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-January/033789.html
The current wording of the bylaws indicates that there are two ways for a TU to qualify for special removal due to inactivity:
1) Do not participate in voting, thereby potentially blockading a quorum.
2) Do not participate in general TU'ish activities like maintaining [community], administrating the AUR and the packagers and users therein, being representative of TUs in general on this mailing list by being awesome and stuff, i.e. posting (hopefully useful information that helps AUR users), and... um... voting?
Point #2 calls out "performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR", but does the tu voting interface on aurweb count as that or not? Moreover, do we *want* it to count? It seems to be somewhat defeating the purpose of the process, i.e. as long as a TU doesn't actually block quorum during a vote, they can remain while not actually performing any of the inherent functions of a TU.
Now, I would argue that under a common sense interpretation the original intent of the bylaws was almost certainly that voting does not count as a "TU privilege", since a TU is someone who has the "privilege" to administrate AUR packages and users in order to keep good order, and select good packages to upload to [community].
But bylaws exist in order to prevent people from having different interpretations of common sense. So this should be clarified no matter what.
Thus far, we've (I think) only seen people argue that:
1) this is what the bylaws really mean, let us clarify it for the sake of less confusion some other day,
2) The bylaws do not mean this and should not do this.
Can I assume that means there is no one who feels this *should* be true, but currently *isn't*?
...
Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
The discussion period is over, time to vote!
The results are in! Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation 26 9 4 39 Yes 81.25% Seems like overall people thought this was a reasonable interpretation. Rather than holding *another* round of votes to decide whether the previous voting results (for #100 and #101) should be upheld two weeks later, I think it is safe to declare that the previous proposals were indeed valid. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User