On 11/04/18 at 01:37am, shoober420 via aur-general wrote:
I already did. I showed an example of how I contributed, and I already have two packages I was able to update and maintain. There would have been many more if I wasn't suspended for no good reason.
The reason was given here already, i.e. making (seemingly) bogus requests. I guess marking inactive should also ask for a reason in the future and mail that to the inactivee. That's something which I believe does not exists yet.
You blindly assuming I didn't contact the maintainer, then denying my request TWICE, not giving a reason TWICE, instead of actually discussing it with me why you denied my maintainership is not actually a reason to deny my request. Since you didn't explicitly claim why you denied it, having two times to do so, taunting me to request it again, technically is no reason to deny someones request.
As said before, it's common to first flag it out of date, wait for results and then orphan it.
Not only was no reason given to denying my request to maintain sdl2-hg, you gave no reason for suspending my account. FYI, "sdl2-hg" and "lib32-sdl2-hg" were both maintained by the same guy, so if you just handed over maintainership to me for "lib32-sdl2-hg" in a blink of an eye, there's no reason to do the same for "sdl2-hg", considering it was the same maintainer, and all the reasons I mentioned before, especcially the comment from "Teteros".
Different TU's accept AUR requests, and respond differently to requests such as "Yo I got this my dude". Anyway please take a deep breath, calm down and refrain from re-iterating already mentioned statements. If you don't calm down, I will moderate you here, since this discussion is not going anywhere.
This all in all, is completely unprofessional, and for some of you to judge me and my actions...maybe you all should look at yourselfs before even considering judging me.
It's hard not to judge if you keep making/re-iterating the topic instead of calming down. And asking in a friendly manner if your account can be activated again. -- Jelle van der Waa