I apologize for contributing to this sturm und drang. On 2019-01-08 12:33, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
Rules without a process to ensure they actually achieve a useful result don't do the thing they are intended to do. I guess if people are dissatisfied with the application process, then a moratorium might be considered a valid alternative, but I think most will agree it is not a *good* alternative.
Historically, reviews happen by a maximum of one person, and it's almost always either me or Levente. And I'm no longer interested in the pressure. Now we're getting recent cases where no one reviews at all, or someone does but only on the last day of the discussion period.
Bottom line is that perceptions of inefficiencies in the application process can only be solved by changing the people doing the voting.
I agree. I will help share the load and hope the wider TU community will join.
The original sponsors should have done this and more in the first place. I don't want to vote for a candidate simply because I cannot find any compelling objections -- I want to vote for a candidate because s/he and sponsor(s) gave me a passionate reason to believe in them.
I would like to highlight dvzrv for being very effective - well before my application he was helping improve my PKGBUILDs, during my application he helped me prep, and even after my acceptance he has continued to give great feedback.