On Dec 20, 2007 3:34 AM, Callan Barrett wrote:

I don't think it's a good idea to put them into unsupported and that they should be deleted from community altogether.

I'm not going to comment on xterminus' removal, or anything of that sort. I'd just like to hear your reasoning for taking perfectly good PKGBUILDs and removing them from the face of the earth. Why not go into unsupported, if nobody wants to maintain them?

Okey Dokey, I can take a stab at your request. I would be in favor of this: IF the by-laws can be interpreted to allow for a "hiatus" until the guy or gal that is unreachable is back in due form, that would be great. i.e. He or she can be allowed to remain a tu, but does not have their non-voting participation held against them or US, because we do not include them in the total number of expected voting tu s I think we have a good basis for a nice organization. AND the quorum numbers and such needed for the voting process will be usable again without banishing people that are having some sort of problems we can only guess at. IF the by-laws cannot or will not be interpreted this way, then I suggest we change them so that we can have inactive tu s without removing them altogether. Anyways, that is my opinion. Very best regards; Bob Finch

This is an email to propose the removal of the Trusted User xterminus (Charles Mauch), I feel this is required so the group of Trusted Users does not stagnate and he is the perfect candidate for putting the bylaws into effect. xterminus has been gone for what I believe is months without any sort of notification, he has not maintained any of his packages nor has he participated in any of the votes.

This will begin the 3 day discussion period as written in the bylaws.

I'll start: as much as don't like to do this to someone I knew as well as xterminus the fact is he has disappeared off the face of the earth, nobody knows where he's gone, nobody knows if he'll be back. He does not respond to email and he hasn't done anything as a TU in months, nobody has seen him on irc and his website seems to have long expired. I think his removal is the best thing to do.

I know xterminus maintained a *lot* of packages in community, most of them being CPAN modules which, according to xterminus, had a whole set of special scripts he used to maintain them. I don't think it's a good idea to put them into unsupported and that they should be deleted from community altogether, any other packages he maintained that are left over should be taken on by whatever TU can handle them and then anything left should be put into unsupported.

I'd like to hear anyone else's opinion on this.

-- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett

IF the by-laws can be interpreted to allow for a "hiatus" until the guy or gal that is unreachable is back in due form, that would be great. i.e. He or she can be allowed to remain a tu, but does not have their non-voting participation held against them or US, because we do not include them in the total number of expected voting tu s I think we have a good basis for a nice organization. AND the quorum numbers and such needed for the voting process will be usable again without banishing people that are having some sort of problems we can only guess at.

IF the by-laws cannot or will not be interpreted this way, then I suggest we change them so that we can have inactive tu s without removing them altogether.

Something like that was the pragmatical solution I intended to go for when I asked for a constructive approach. But the more common opinion here seems to be to act according to the current by-laws instead of attempting to reform them. In the past I had the impression that pragmatism was more important than the by-laws. But I suppose people have changed; after all some are starting to compare TU-ship with a professional job. The bottom line for me is currently: if I'm left alone to contribute in the form I have done it over the past few months, I'd be very happy. If not, I'll -- granted, reluctantly -- take my hat and give up TU-ship. Leslie -- My personal blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/

On Dec 20, 2007 10:38 AM, Callan Barrett wrote:

On Dec 21, 2007 1:10 AM, wrote:

...

IF the by-laws cannot or will not be interpreted this way, then I suggest we change them so that we can have inactive tu s without removing them altogether.

Exactly what you described is in the bylaws. A TU can be inactive for a maximum of 2 months WITH explanation, xterminus has disappeared without any such explanation and so should not be applied to that rule anyway so there's no reason for him to be marked "inactive indefinitely" (this status does not exist and should never exist by the way). I think changing the bylaws is a terrible way to deal with this as xterminus would be free (and I imagine welcomed) to reapply as a TU *if* he returns.

For the record, he _is_ incommunicado. I have tried to contact him numerous times over... the past 3 or 4 months maybe. I think Jeff actually had some luck, but he has attempted the same

On Dec 21, 2007 3:28 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta wrote:

Is it a problem or are you making it a problem?

It is a problem and you are making it a problem.

Sure, people like xterminus, willysilly create awkward situations, but I think we should just silently clean those cases up and keep working with the people who *do* function properly. We simply cannot protect ourselves fully from cases like that, since the one and only way to know if a person is worth anything is to give that person a chance to work and see what happens in half a year.

1. xterminus and WillySilly are unique cases and that is a completely different subject altogether. 2. No, I don't agree that we should give people who already half-ass it (I suppose I'll use that instead of lazy) an extra 6 months to continue half-assing it before we even consider removing them. They're replaceable and if you don't like it you should go and start your own distribution of half-asses. 3. *I* am not creating a problem but in fact *you* are with your half-assery, 'you' is a word that means not me but in fact you.

P.S. that word, 'lazy', I don't think it means what you think it means. ;)

P.S. sorry my english she is not so good :((( -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett

On Dec 21, 2007 2:49 AM, Vesa Kaihlavirta wrote:

On Dec 21, 2007 10:44 AM, Callan Barrett wrote:

...

2. No, I don't agree that we should give people who already half-ass it (I suppose I'll use that instead of lazy) an extra 6 months to continue half-assing it before we even consider removing them. They're replaceable and if you don't like it you should go and start your own distribution of half-asses.

No, I like it here and I like the work I do. If you keep that attitude, I think it is much better if it is you who leaves.

Holy crap this is petty. Keep in mind that Archlinux still hosts everything related to the TUs, and you are tarnishing ArchLinux's image by continuing with this. The simply fact is: the TU ByLaws say that things must be done a certain way. EVERYONE knew of these bylaws when joining the group. There is no excuse here. The rules say "do this", people are not doing it, as such, the rules are being broken. Now, here's the irony of the situation. The ByLaws allow self modification by the same voting process. You're more then welcome to start a vote to change the wording of some of this to side with you. Beyond that, however, breaking the rules is still breaking the rules.