2010/12/2 Ray Rashif

On 3 December 2010 06:47, Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.

Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a voting procedure should follow after 7 days of discussion.

Here are my reasons:

1) i noticed in January he doesn't have an account on our devel panel, i asked him to send all the infos to get one and he replied that he doesn't need one because none of his packages are suitable for community. Replying to his email i encourage to get one and adopt some packages from community. At that time we have ~700 orphans and i haven't got any replies from him.

2) no commits in community since the addition.

3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this proposal doesn't have sense. Quoting:

"There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."

I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.

This is kinda sad to hear, but given the complete (and undeclared) inactivity, I'd agree.

Yeah. At first I thought it was a normal inactivity issue. But then Ionut made me aware that he doesn't even have an account. That was awkward.

Anyway, he doesn't appear to have the time. So I say it's best he's removed for now. He can apply again after 3 months if by that time he wants to start contributing.

It make sense to start a removal procedure: no activities, no votes.

On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:28:42 -0500 Kaiting Chen wrote:

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

Hi,

Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.

This must sound stupid, but who are we talking about? Is he on this page?

https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/

--Kaiting.

Not as far as I see. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.

i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only in one direction.

i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.

Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?

You still need to create a voting proposal. Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?

On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.

i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only in one direction.

i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.

Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?

You still need to create a voting proposal. Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?

I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut inferred that we needn't vote from the following: "for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above." I have to admit I'm not so sure exactly how it "deviates", but I suppose it doesn't mean "no voting".

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.

i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only in one direction.

i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.

Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?

You still need to create a voting proposal. Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?

I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut inferred that we needn't vote from the following:

"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."

above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the opposite of having a voting? NO voting.

we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure. we just removed it and we continued our business.

with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair, we are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in community.

Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone. But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws. Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws. We cannot be at liberty to remove people without proper procedure.

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 12/05/2010 12:07 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote: > >I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them. >

i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only in one direction.

i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for this and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.

Loui can you disable his account on sigurd? Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?

You still need to create a voting proposal. Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?

I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut inferred that we needn't vote from the following:

"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."

above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the opposite of having a voting? NO voting.

we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure. we just removed it and we continued our business.

with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair, we are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in community.

Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone. But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws. Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws.

maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:

"The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.

A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal of a Trusted User. (THIS IS ME) Following the motion, standard voting procedure commences with a discussion period of 7 days.

There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."

The problem is your eyes stopped reading where you wanted them to stop. The next two sentences read:

This motion is also automatically triggered by repeated quorum offenses, as described in the Quorum subsection of this document. For this special case, SVP is followed with a discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 5 days.

You can't just pick and choose the passage that fits best for goal. You need to take the bylaws in their entirety.

On 12/05/2010 12:32 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:

"The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.

A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal of a Trusted User. (THIS IS ME)

I also fail to see how you are two active Trusted Users, but I would take the agreement of some other TUs as sufficient to count as a second proposer.

clearly we need to redone the motion because nobody replied with, "I support the motion". I think for all that really discussed the motion and agreed, was implied. we need to take lessons from you with a good example. Take me as example for a course classe, because we are really a bunch of idiots who cannot understand some phrases. The hole democratic and election like in the book is making me crazy. we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow, bylaws letter by letter -- Ionuț

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 07:22 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

On 5 December 2010 06:46, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow, bylaws letter by letter

The bylaws are what empower us to act upon and make decisions - it's not about following the laws word by word. Without them, we wouldn't take ourselves seriously :)

Granted, the wording can be a little too formal for non-English speakers. Perhaps there should be some translations for it?

That's my take on it as well. Translations would not end however, simplification may be better.

PyroPeter wrote:

On 12/05/2010 12:44 AM, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 07:22 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

On 5 December 2010 06:46, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow, bylaws letter by letter

The bylaws are what empower us to act upon and make decisions - it's not about following the laws word by word. Without them, we wouldn't take ourselves seriously :)

Granted, the wording can be a little too formal for non-English speakers. Perhaps there should be some translations for it?

That's my take on it as well. Translations would not end however, simplification may be better.

I also find the bylaws difficult to understand, but maybe it would be easier to convert them into a flowchart?

$ rmtu Ranguvar error: This removal is not in accordance with the TU by-laws. $ sudo rmtu Ranguvar removing Ranguvar... done. I'm halfway tempted to create the flowchart but I just don't have the time. If someone wants to adapt the dot file from the Arch Linux Help Guide Flowchart, feel free: http://xyne.archlinux.ca/miscellaneous/#the-arch-linux-help-guide-flowchart Make sure that "Blame Allan" is in there somewhere (Was quorum reached? --no--> Blame Allan --> etc) For what it's worth, I agree that the by-laws should be followed, even if the outcome is clear. Out of 28 TUs less than a third participated in the "discussion". If you don't like the by-laws then propose a change. If we start picking and choosing which ones apply and to whom, then what's the point of having by-laws at all?

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, PyroPeter wrote:

On 12/05/2010 03:11 AM, Xyne wrote:

...

I'm halfway tempted to create the flowchart but I just don't have the time. If someone wants to adapt the dot file from the Arch Linux Help Guide Flowchart, feel free:

http://xyne.archlinux.ca/miscellaneous/#the-arch-linux-help-guide-flowchart

Make sure that "Blame Allan" is in there somewhere (Was quorum reached? --no--> Blame Allan --> etc)

I created a flowchart about the Standard Voting Procedure [1], but I had problems understanding this bit:

...

A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the event of a draw, being that 50% is not a majority, the motion does not pass.

Isn't "reject" the same as "does not pass"? And what means "being that 50% is not a majority"? (50% of what?)

As I showed in the graph, I understood the quoted text as follows:

...

If more than 50% of the votes cast for YES, the motion passes, if not, it is rejected.

That's the correct interpretation. A simple majority requires *greater* than 50% of the votes cast which is what the part up above was trying to express. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

On 12/05/2010 08:43 PM, Loui Chang wrote:

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 13:47 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:

...

That's the correct interpretation. A simple majority requires *greater* than 50% of the votes cast which is what the part up above was trying to express.

"Did more than 50% of the votes cast for YES?" should be changed to: "Are the number of YES votes greater than the number of NO votes?"

Remember abstained votes don't count as votes.

Ok, I changed that. The bylaws should probably more specific about the definition of "simple majority". Maybe one could replace the following: "A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the event of a draw, being that 50% is not a majority, the motion does not pass." with this: "For the motion to pass, the number of YES votes has to be greater than the number of NO votes." -- freenode/pyropeter "12:50 - Ich drücke Return."

On 12/05/2010 10:45 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

Hello all.

I would like apply to become a TU! Daenyth has decided to sponsor me for my TU application

I'm 21 years old and a Bachelor student Computer Science. I have experience with C++, C, x86 ASM, Java, Python, PHP, SQL and javascript. I use archlinux on daily basis as a server and as desktop on my laptop.

Since a year I am a maintainer at the Arch-Games project[0], since then i learned how to deal with makepkg, libpng/libjpeg patches, rebuilding packages for boost/python. Also learning how to work and setup clean chroots for 32 and 64 bit and how to improve PKGBUILDs and use tools like git/svn/namcap.

I have had much fun and hard work working on updating packages for arch-games, Daenyth really helped me a lot and #archlinux and #archlinux-offtopic guys too ;) Also I must admit i have learned a lot from Ioni.

I would like to become a Trusted User, so I can help packaging for community since something there are a lot of orphan packages so I will be always prepared to update/improve those packages. I would love to see improvements like more splitting of packages which has been done with packages like compiz. Also creating more any packages would be better for our mirrors. Since we didn't have much space for packages, I have had to split much data packages to "any".

My current packaging interests are haskell, LaTeX, cli apps, virtualization.

In the future i am looking into improving tools such as namcap.

Feel free ask any questions here or on irc.

[0] https://github.com/Arch-Games/arch-games

You should consider reposting you application with a meaningful subject and without the "In-Reply-To" header (which is created by you mail client when you use the "reply" button to send a mail to the list. In Thunderbird your message shows up in the middle of the "Non-native English speakers and the AUR by-laws [WAS: removal proposal for Ranguvar]" thread. -- freenode/pyropeter "12:50 - Ich drücke Return."

Am 05.12.2010 21:37, schrieb Xyne:

Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 05 Dec 2010 13:47 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:

...

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, PyroPeter wrote:

...

On 12/05/2010 03:11 AM, Xyne wrote:

...

I'm halfway tempted to create the flowchart but I just don't have the time. If someone wants to adapt the dot file from the Arch Linux Help Guide Flowchart, feel free:

http://xyne.archlinux.ca/miscellaneous/#the-arch-linux-help-guide-flowchart

Make sure that "Blame Allan" is in there somewhere (Was quorum reached? --no--> Blame Allan --> etc)

I created a flowchart about the Standard Voting Procedure [1], but I had problems understanding this bit:

...

A simple majority is needed to pass or reject the motion. In the event of a draw, being that 50% is not a majority, the motion does not pass.

Isn't "reject" the same as "does not pass"? And what means "being that 50% is not a majority"? (50% of what?)

As I showed in the graph, I understood the quoted text as follows:

...

If more than 50% of the votes cast for YES, the motion passes, if not, it is rejected.

That's the correct interpretation. A simple majority requires *greater* than 50% of the votes cast which is what the part up above was trying to express.

"Did more than 50% of the votes cast for YES?" should be changed to: "Are the number of YES votes greater than the number of NO votes?"

Remember abstained votes don't count as votes.

I've never read it that way. If "abstain" counts towards the quorum then it counts towards the total number of votes. A simple majority must therefore be more than half of all the votes, i.e. > 1/2 * (yes + no + abstain).

If it wasn't that way then 1 person could vote yes and everyone else could abstain yet the motion would still pass. I think a greater show of confidence than 1 "yes" vote should be required before giving someone access to [community] and the AUR.

Basically, a TU application should be accepted base on a threshold level of confidence, not an absence of opposition. Requiring a simple majority of those who participate in the vote achieves that.

Regardless, it's clear that the bylaws need to be amended.

I always read it the way Loui stated. Anything else does not make sense to me. If it were to be read in the way you described it, abstains really were the same as no-votes. And I have no problem with your example. In practice, this will not happen. At least it did not happen anything similar in the past. In theory, if we have one yes-vote, no no-vote and a bunch of abstains, say 2/3 of the number of TUs, the vote is valid to me, because the quorum is met and no-one is _against_ the proposal. We should consider abstains as something neutral, not something negative. Regards Stefan

2010/12/4 Ray Rashif :

On 5 December 2010 06:46, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

...

we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow, bylaws letter by letter

The bylaws are what empower us to act upon and make decisions - it's not about following the laws word by word. Without them, we wouldn't take ourselves seriously :)

Granted, the wording can be a little too formal for non-English speakers. Perhaps there should be some translations for it?

In any case, this _is_ the motion. There is also a second TU behind the motion (Angel/angvp) but he hasn't replied. In fact, if we were to count informal (IRC) conversations, then Ionut would be the second.

IRC doesn't count, I had this problem before, let's do the votation process when discussion is over, maybe Ranguvar shows up to say some words. Even if nobody shows disagreement on this motion, we should follow the bylaws.. and do the votation process, etc.. IMHO those special cases are very open and won't never be applied, so let's go on with this discussion period and then the votation process. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com