Hello Santiago,
First of all thanks for rewriting this up: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2018-November/029392.h...
No problem! Hope I didn't miss anything. I was wondering whether to post the link to this thread, thanks for that :)
I have a few questions about your oversight comittee. You wrote:
Finally, a third proposal (and the one I'm championing) is to generate an elected organism within the TU community to overlook the performance of Trusted Users on the duties they agreed to fulfill. This oversight committee would track the activities of individual TUs and ensure that they are in fact participating in reviews, submitting proper high-quality PKGBUILDS, and moving packages to and from the AUR when the package's popularity changes.
The methods by which this committee would enforce better TU participation are still to be discussed, but issuing warnings and probably bring cases to the broader TU community regarding an underperforming TU may be sufficient and nondisruptive.
When I understand this correctly you want to punish TUs when they don't fullfill their duties. How do you want to accomplish this and what do you mean with 'moving packages to and from the AUR whrn the package's popularity changes'? So only this commitee should be able to push new packages to [community]?
"Punishing" was a word that I was avoiding. I wouldn't want this committee to be vested with power over TU's for obvious reasons. If at all, I would be proposing for them to: 1) Privately warn TUs when of any faults they are committing 2) Follow up publicly when the warnings are disregarded 3) Open a public case with the rest of the TU's to remove the offender, as it id describing in the bylaws[1] Cheers! -Santiago. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html#_removal_of_a_tu