On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri 16 Jul 2010 10:14 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu 15 Jul 2010 14:11 -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote:
2010/7/15 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
So let's start the removal procedure for swiergot (who is pretty dissapeared).
Removal procedure is started, swiergot downgraded as a Normal User for keep sure that he won't vote (Removal procedure states that a TU can't vote against him).
You are wrong to start this removal process. None of those Trusted Users have prevented quorum from being met yet. Please reverse your actions.
If you do want to remove them, you should offer some other reason and we need to vote on it, or we could vote on a change to the bylaws to redefine inactivity.
Bah, I should vote for a change the bylaws, I missunderstood what I quoted before (Isaac's did a good point).
Facts are (speaking generally):
a) Removal of a TU is very hard, (even if he/she or they aren't doing anything), we should need some 'automatic way' or .. less bereucratic way to do that.
Removing a TU is not any harder than adding a TU, do you propose that we can remove TUs willy-nilly without votes? I don't agree with that idea.
We discuss it, on IRC there was 5 tu online at that moment, I said "I will start the votation of removal", nobody told me anything, they let me go in fact I did two mistakes, i put 7 days, and gang told me "hey pal is just 5 days"... we all missunderstood it, but my point is, why we have to discuss it so long?.. it's just a barrier, for example at today (two days after) the guy is still dissapeared (what is his timezone -48 ?), I remember you again, we did the votation process (it's running as you see .. obviously is invalid ATM), we just skip the discussion about his removal because we though that it was automatically, that's it.. isn't automatically, good .. so for that moment, is started the discussion process ... will see on the next week, I hope somebody will be in charge of creating the votation process or something, not me again, thanks. And about the automatic removal.. If a people isn't doing anything .. and he's dissapeared, wait for 7 days ... discussing what? the process of discussion should be short IMO (three days is enough).. and when the facts are heavy like .. 0 packages in AUR ... in community is everything almost out of date and have workload on TODO from more than 2 months ago and he isn't marked as inactive.. is unresponsability and disrespect with the rest of the team... in those cases, I think discussion .. is beurecratic, he should will start to a votation process directly ... but .. that's it.. is just my opinion, and I don't want to discuss it in this thread. (we are talking about TU duties not about bylaws), and I know that I can propose something better and you can vote to accept or it, but ... no thanks, is hard to make happy too much people, I just share my opinion, I dislike un-responsible/slacker people, that's it, there's a life, everyone of us have it, heavys or not, write two lines asking for some time.. is less than 5 minutes (even writting as a turtle like 60 wpm or less).
b) TU System on AUR need so much code ... (it's very limited) and I can't or edit/delete that votation progress. It's invalid, of course, but at the system level isn't.
That's fine. It's just a method to collect votes - nothing more really. We used to do it via the mailing list.
IIRC we werent TUs for those times :) (but I know it, I read the history of the list, Im just poiting that *we* in this case is like .. weird in our cases), but since that times, the TU system should be improved ... As I said, *WE* should be thinking for patches :) (I can point you because you're the AUR maintainer, but I know that there more hands working on it... as the votation that **I (Angel 'angvp' Velasquez')** started)
c) I've speaked on the IRC channel, which btw loui we always would like to have you there (don't know why you don't like to enter or randomly :P), so I missunderstood somepart of the bylaws as Isaac pointed me, but nobody told me anything too.. so I am accepting my fault, but maybe if you were on our irc channel, you can advice me before to send the application etc etc.
Yeah you should better familiarise yourself with the bylaws and ask for clarification if there's any misunderstanding.
As I said we were 5 TUs on the irc channel and nobody said something they were ONLINE not IDLE, but, I know, I started the votation process is my mistake, I am not justifying it, and you're pointing me without know the whole situation, as I said, please join to the channel which is private, and we can discuss our private stuff there, instead of shooting and then aim.
We're waiting yet for a swiergot's response yet.. so if past 24 hours of the last mail, he doesn't replied anything I will ask for his removal (on the TU channel though, and oh, again, you Loui are invited to join us!, we are so wonderful people there :D)
Decision bearing discussion needs to be done over the mailing list, not IRC. We have TUs from all over the globe. IRC is not practical. People have to work or sleep at different times and may not be able to attend an IRC meeting.
It was an e-mail, then I said on IRC, and the mailing list that I was starting the process.. then, almost like 1 hour ago it was.. Next time, I let it go, really, in fact, I shouldn't start the process for removal, I will let you decide what to do, and most important, I will let you and the tu crew DO something about removal or not of these people. So, that's it, I'm accepting my mistake, not justifying it, but the fact is, this guy is candidate for removal, leave it or take it, as I said, is nothing personal with the guy, I almost know him, but I won't do anything more for starting removal of anybody, if a votation process is started I will vote, and that's my last word. Good weekend, people! -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com