On Jan 17, 2008 7:19 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com <mailto:wizzomafizzo@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Jan 17, 2008 7:46 AM, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net <mailto:Firmicus@gmx.net>> wrote: > > I just looked at the TU Bylaws concerning TU removal > http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/TUbylaws.html#Removal <http://dev.archlinux.org/%7Esimo/TUbylaws.html#Removal> > and it looks like this discussion is not yet valid, for it says that > > "A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal of a Trusted > User." > > AFAICS only one such motion has been made until now ...
The discussion period was started because of the "special case" and is meant to be "automatically triggered" anyway. Keep in mind that even if this discussion ends in a vote (which it looks like it won't) you're free to vote no, that's why it's a vote.
Hmm, I should have read the last paragraph obviously :) You were perfectly right. Sorry for the noise. I agree this discussion is important and necessary. I still hope we can resolve the issue. And for that Sergej needs to show some sign of cooperation. Ronald van Haren wrote:
For a lot of these packages I do not see any use for them being in [community]. Please drop a lot of them, orphan them, put them in unsupported and post a list on an announcement on bbs so at least some of them get picked up. The other packages will get adopted in time when somebody needs them (which is questionable seeing the amount of votes). This will give you time to properly maintain your remaining packages.
For all other TUs looking to adopt more packages, or upcoming TUs, there are enough packages with a reasonably amount of votes in unsupported left to adopt. Please choose to maintain them instead of packages you may use which have only a very small amount of votes. Callan if you want to start a new thread about this, feel free to do so this discussion does not get lost here.
I perfectly agree with the above. That was exactly the point I made in my first message in this thread. F