The current threshold of applicants has raised some concerns with the TU community regarding the quality of the applications submitted. In order to improve this, increase the threshold of TU sponsors with the following goals:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs - Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate --- tu-bylaws.txt | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tu-bylaws.txt b/tu-bylaws.txt index d32e06c..e958393 100644 --- a/tu-bylaws.txt +++ b/tu-bylaws.txt @@ -100,11 +100,13 @@ Addition of a TU
The addition of a TU may occur at any time.
-In order to become a TU, one must first find a sponsoring TU, -and arrange privately with them to announce their candidacy on the -https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] mailing -list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a -discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days. +In order to become a TU, one must first find two sponsoring TUs following the +guidelines outlined below, and arrange privately with them to announce their +candidacy on the +https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] +mailing list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences +with a discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 +days.
---- SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); @@ -113,6 +115,7 @@ SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); If a candidate is rejected by SVP, they may not reapply to become a Trusted User for a period of three months.
+ Removal of a TU ---------------
Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors? Also, if we are heading this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors?
This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any PKGBUILDS during the discussion period.
Also, if we are heading this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation.
What're everyone's thoughts on this?
Thanks, -Santiago.
On 1/8/19 4:31 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors?
This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any PKGBUILDS during the discussion period.
Also, if we are heading this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation.
What're everyone's thoughts on this?
Thanks, -Santiago.
I don't think the bylaws should *explicitly* state or require two additional, non-sponsoring TU's to conduct reviews. I can think of a number of downsides with making that a requirement with possibly one upside.
However, I do think it should be a well-known and documented (i.e. in the wiki) best-practice that during the review process, there's two or more non-sponsoring TU's reviewing the applicant's packages. Informal, but effective.
Regards,
Andrew
On 1/8/19 11:30 AM, Andrew Crerar wrote:
On 1/8/19 4:31 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors?
This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any PKGBUILDS during the discussion period.
Also, if we are heading this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation.
What're everyone's thoughts on this?
Thanks, -Santiago.
I don't think the bylaws should *explicitly* state or require two additional, non-sponsoring TU's to conduct reviews. I can think of a number of downsides with making that a requirement with possibly one upside.
However, I do think it should be a well-known and documented (i.e. in the wiki) best-practice that during the review process, there's two or more non-sponsoring TU's reviewing the applicant's packages. Informal, but effective.
I'll go one step further: these guidelines are a good way to ensure there will be no new applicants, at all. We should just be honest and declare in plain words that we are placing a full, unconditional moratorium on applications...
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.
Wiki documentation does nothing; everyone expects someone else to do it, and it's a niche skill in the first place.
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.
Bottom line is that perceptions of inefficiencies in the application process can only be solved by changing the people doing the voting. It's logically inconsistent to blame the rules rather than the voters when considering the outcome of the voting counts.
Raising the minimum criteria for considering a valid applicant by increasing the number of sponsors is something I can point to and say "this is supposed to make sure one person cannot push through a candidate on the strength of other people abstaining due to lack of knowledge".
Quite frankly, I agree with what Xyne said here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-November/034652.html
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.
My intention for PKGBUILD reviews was always to give another data point about the applicant. Not to make that be the only thing anyone cares about. I'm severely opposed to any proposal that we codify PKGBUILD reviews in the bylaws, as I think it will have the very opposite effect and result in a reduction in quality.
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:33:46PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 1/8/19 11:30 AM, Andrew Crerar wrote:
SNIP't
I'll go one step further: these guidelines are a good way to ensure there will be no new applicants, at all. We should just be honest and declare in plain words that we are placing a full, unconditional moratorium on applications...
Sigh, I understand where you're coming from.
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.
Sigh, I sadly agree with this. I can only say I'm very thankful for all the hard work you and levente have put on reivewing peoples PKGBUILDs>
Wiki documentation does nothing; everyone expects someone else to do it, and it's a niche skill in the first place.
Probably, yes. To be quite fair I don't think people would look at the wiki to see these "soft" duties and keep them as something worth doing.
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.
This reads as somewhat threatening. Although I don't completely disagree with it how it looks. this is what I feels is in the line: the credibility of TU's as a whole :)
Bottom line is that perceptions of inefficiencies in the application process can only be solved by changing the people doing the voting. It's logically inconsistent to blame the rules rather than the voters when considering the outcome of the voting counts.
This is a valid point, hence my other suggestions of having a more institutionalized enforcing mechanism. Yet we care about the "visuals" of it being horizontal or not. I don't think any proposals in the table are exclusive though...
Raising the minimum criteria for considering a valid applicant by increasing the number of sponsors is something I can point to and say "this is supposed to make sure one person cannot push through a candidate on the strength of other people abstaining due to lack of knowledge".
This is something that has been proven to increase due dilligence in other organizations (e.g., the CNCF did just the same last year). I don't think it happens like magic, but having two careless sponsors is just probabilistically harder to find :)
Quite frankly, I agree with what Xyne said here: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-November/034652.html
I honestly find this protocol a little more verbose and with not much to change. Again, from the CNCF application process, sponsors generally know other TU's so they may reach to each other and ask applicants to propose their co-sponsorship.
Am I missing something on this point?
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.
My intention for PKGBUILD reviews was always to give another data point about the applicant. Not to make that be the only thing anyone cares about. I'm severely opposed to any proposal that we codify PKGBUILD reviews in the bylaws, as I think it will have the very opposite effect and result in a reduction in quality.
I completely agree with these two points. PKGBUILD reviews by fellow TU's shouldn't be a given, but rather something that may come as a plus. Again, I cannot stress enough how thankful I am with you and Levente for your hard work.
-Santiago.
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.
Hi,
Sorry I just realized that we're overdue on the vote for this as the discussion period is only 5 days.
Let the votes begin! -Santiago.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:23:12PM -0500, Santiago Torres wrote:
The current threshold of applicants has raised some concerns with the TU community regarding the quality of the applications submitted. In order to improve this, increase the threshold of TU sponsors with the following goals:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
tu-bylaws.txt | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tu-bylaws.txt b/tu-bylaws.txt index d32e06c..e958393 100644 --- a/tu-bylaws.txt +++ b/tu-bylaws.txt @@ -100,11 +100,13 @@ Addition of a TU
The addition of a TU may occur at any time.
-In order to become a TU, one must first find a sponsoring TU, -and arrange privately with them to announce their candidacy on the -https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] mailing -list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a -discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days. +In order to become a TU, one must first find two sponsoring TUs following the +guidelines outlined below, and arrange privately with them to announce their +candidacy on the +https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] +mailing list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences +with a discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 +days.
SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); @@ -113,6 +115,7 @@ SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); If a candidate is rejected by SVP, they may not reapply to become a Trusted User for a period of three months.
Removal of a TU
-- 2.20.1
Helloe everyone,
It's been a week and the result are in:
Yes :34 No : 7 Abstain: 6 Total :47
with a participation 83.93%, the vote to raise the number of TU sponsors to two has passed.
Thanks to everyone for voting! -Santiago
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:37:38PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I just realized that we're overdue on the vote for this as the discussion period is only 5 days.
Let the votes begin! -Santiago.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:23:12PM -0500, Santiago Torres wrote:
The current threshold of applicants has raised some concerns with the TU community regarding the quality of the applications submitted. In order to improve this, increase the threshold of TU sponsors with the following goals:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
tu-bylaws.txt | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tu-bylaws.txt b/tu-bylaws.txt index d32e06c..e958393 100644 --- a/tu-bylaws.txt +++ b/tu-bylaws.txt @@ -100,11 +100,13 @@ Addition of a TU
The addition of a TU may occur at any time.
-In order to become a TU, one must first find a sponsoring TU, -and arrange privately with them to announce their candidacy on the -https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] mailing -list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a -discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days. +In order to become a TU, one must first find two sponsoring TUs following the +guidelines outlined below, and arrange privately with them to announce their +candidacy on the +https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] +mailing list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences +with a discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 +days.
SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); @@ -113,6 +115,7 @@ SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); If a candidate is rejected by SVP, they may not reapply to become a Trusted User for a period of three months.
Removal of a TU
-- 2.20.1
On 1/21/19 8:09 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
Helloe everyone,
It's been a week and the result are in:
Yes :34 No : 7 Abstain: 6 Total :47
with a participation 83.93%, the vote to raise the number of TU sponsors to two has passed.
Thanks to everyone for voting! -Santiago
Cool, it's official.
*puts on aurweb hat* Will deploy ASAP.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:37:38PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
Hi,
Sorry I just realized that we're overdue on the vote for this as the discussion period is only 5 days.
Let the votes begin! -Santiago.
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 09:23:12PM -0500, Santiago Torres wrote:
The current threshold of applicants has raised some concerns with the TU community regarding the quality of the applications submitted. In order to improve this, increase the threshold of TU sponsors with the following goals:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
- Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
tu-bylaws.txt | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tu-bylaws.txt b/tu-bylaws.txt index d32e06c..e958393 100644 --- a/tu-bylaws.txt +++ b/tu-bylaws.txt @@ -100,11 +100,13 @@ Addition of a TU
The addition of a TU may occur at any time.
-In order to become a TU, one must first find a sponsoring TU, -and arrange privately with them to announce their candidacy on the -https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] mailing -list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences with a -discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 days. +In order to become a TU, one must first find two sponsoring TUs following the +guidelines outlined below, and arrange privately with them to announce their +candidacy on the +https://mailman.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/aur-general%5Baur-general] +mailing list. Following the announcement, standard voting procedure commences +with a discussion period of 14 days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 7 +days.
SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); @@ -113,6 +115,7 @@ SVP( addition_of_TU, 14, 0.66, 7 ); If a candidate is rejected by SVP, they may not reapply to become a Trusted User for a period of three months.
Removal of a TU
Just going to remove this completely uncontroversial whitespace formatting issue first.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org