On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:24 AM George Rawlinson via aur-general <aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
I am interested in seeing what others think (not just staff members) of the situation.
Not a TU here so just my two cents: In general I like to have a four-eyes review for things being done (code / infrastructure changes, "moderation actions", …) though I do understand the requirement of being able to handle problematic cases without waiting for another party to review the change (spam packages, emergency fixes, misbehaving users, …). For the action which caused this discussion for me the self-approval was less an issue (the action is clearly documented and therefore the path and reason of action is clear) than the short time of notice:
From my own perspective having management of my packages mostly automated this might cause trouble in the AUR as my automation might interfere with the mod-action of removing the package.
So I would go with a guideline: actions **should** be reviewed and not self-approved but in cases quick response is required, the acting TU is **not required** to wait for a review. If there is no other TU available, the requesting TU **should** at least give some time for the maintainer to notice the request before approving themselves. -- Knut Ahlers Software & Infrastructure Developer Web & Blog: https://ahlers.me/ GPG-Key: 0xD215AD7D