Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over. It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected.
@graysky I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these results. I think that you have demonstrated skills beyond several previously successful candidates and your contributions are valued by many in the community. I hope that this result will not leave a bad impression. You may apply again after 3 months if you choose.
@TUs Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed.
The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be "old and grumpy") and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle.
There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. Voting is not an expression of personal opinion. It is a means of quality control and I would say that it is your obligation to participate in the discussion if you have opinions one way or the other.
tl;dr: wtf?
Regards, Xyne
I fully to Xyne agree here. This rejection was a big surprise to me. If there was a silent agreement of 13 TUs with the reasons Dave might have caused to say no, this should have made louder. Best Regards Stefan