[aur-general] TU (re-)Application
Hi all, Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on almost 7 years later, I'm still an avid Arch user, and have struck a balance in my life where I'm much more capable of contributing to open-source projects than I was back then. The warm regards and well-wishes from my fellow TUs at the time [2][3] have left an extremely positive impression on me, and I find myself once again wanting to pick up some orphaned packages in [community] (surprisingly, the MATE desktop is homeless). Therefore, I'm writing this message to see if there's any interest in getting another helping hand around here. Sincerely, Brad Fanella [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/aur-general@archlinux.org/msg14906.htm l [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/aur-general@archlinux.org/msg14915.htm l [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/aur-general@archlinux.org/msg14920.htm l
On 02/09/2018 01:00 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Hi all,
Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on almost 7 years later, I'm still an avid Arch user, and have struck a balance in my life where I'm much more capable of contributing to open-source projects than I was back then.
The warm regards and well-wishes from my fellow TUs at the time [2][3] have left an extremely positive impression on me, and I find myself once again wanting to pick up some orphaned packages in [community] (surprisingly, the MATE desktop is homeless). Therefore, I'm writing this message to see if there's any interest in getting another helping hand around here.
I never had a chance to know you when you were active before, but I'm sure any TU Fellow would have little/no problems being re-elected, certainly under the circumstances you've presented! :) As for the MATE desktop, it has languished ever since Martin retired. I used it myself for a little while after gnome2, before switching to cinnamon... I've considered getting back in touch with the MATE side of things and picking up the package set, but I'm still not sure I want to, so if you would give it some much-needed love, that would be awesome! -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:25:05AM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 02/09/2018 01:00 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Hi all,
Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on almost 7 years later, I'm still an avid Arch user, and have struck a balance in my life where I'm much more capable of contributing to open-source projects than I was back then.
The warm regards and well-wishes from my fellow TUs at the time [2][3] have left an extremely positive impression on me, and I find myself once again wanting to pick up some orphaned packages in [community] (surprisingly, the MATE desktop is homeless). Therefore, I'm writing this message to see if there's any interest in getting another helping hand around here.
I never had a chance to know you when you were active before, but I'm sure any TU Fellow would have little/no problems being re-elected, certainly under the circumstances you've presented! :)
As for the MATE desktop, it has languished ever since Martin retired. I used it myself for a little while after gnome2, before switching to cinnamon... I've considered getting back in touch with the MATE side of things and picking up the package set, but I'm still not sure I want to, so if you would give it some much-needed love, that would be awesome!
It seems we have no clause in the TU Bylaws [1] on what to do if a Fellow wants to resume his position as TU. That said, I doubt any of us would object when we consider your email as the "application" and simply start the vote after the usual discussion period (1 week) has ended. Best, Alad [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html
Em fevereiro 9, 2018 13:29 Alad Wenter via aur-general escreveu:
It seems we have no clause in the TU Bylaws [1] on what to do if a Fellow wants to resume his position as TU. That said, I doubt any of us would object when we consider your email as the "application" and simply start the vote after the usual discussion period (1 week) has ended.
Best, Alad
I'm not sure if, in this case, he would need a sponsor or not. I don't think we need to amend the bylaws to add this special case for a returning TU, but I do think the standard procedure should be followed. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> writes:
I'm not sure if, in this case, he would need a sponsor or not. I don't think we need to amend the bylaws to add this special case for a returning TU, but I do think the standard procedure should be followed.
One of you TU's can sponsor him right away then, right? Marcin Wieczorek
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:50:23PM +0100, Marcin Wieczorek wrote:
Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> writes:
I'm not sure if, in this case, he would need a sponsor or not. I don't think we need to amend the bylaws to add this special case for a returning TU, but I do think the standard procedure should be followed.
One of you TU's can sponsor him right away then, right?
After taking a closer look, there's a few pain points. * The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. * The website on the archlinux.org TU Fellow page is no longer functional. [2] There has been some recent activity on the "itsbrad212" forum account (which was linked from the 2010 application), but I would not say this is sufficient confirmation. Alad [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-August/010049.html [2] https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella
Alad Wenter via aur-general <aur-general@archlinux.org> writes:
* The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. * The website on the archlinux.org TU Fellow page is no longer functional. [2]
There has been some recent activity on the "itsbrad212" forum account (which was linked from the 2010 application), but I would not say this is sufficient confirmation.
We're waiting for a PGP signed email then, nothing else. Many things may have changed since 2010 (including PGP keys too). I suppose the idea of re-applying involved other TUs. There must be someone to confirm everything we're in doubt about. Regards, Marcin Wieczorek
* The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. * The website on the archlinux.org TU Fellow page is no longer functional. [2]
There has been some recent activity on the "itsbrad212" forum account (which was linked from the 2010 application), but I would not say this is sufficient confirmation.
I understand your cause for concern, so I'd like to know if there is any reasonable way to confirm my identity? As mentioned by somebody else in this thread, a lot has changed since 2010, including PGP package signing in pacman. Every TU now has a fingerprint that can eliminate doubt in situations like these, but I wasn't quite around long enough for its universal adoption. My AUR account was seemingly disabled due to inactivity (?), and I'd be hard- pressed to keep a domain name for 8 years. Thanks, Brad
On 11/02/18 at 01:54pm, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
* The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. * The website on the archlinux.org TU Fellow page is no longer functional. [2]
There has been some recent activity on the "itsbrad212" forum account (which was linked from the 2010 application), but I would not say this is sufficient confirmation.
I understand your cause for concern, so I'd like to know if there is any reasonable way to confirm my identity?
As mentioned by somebody else in this thread, a lot has changed since 2010, including PGP package signing in pacman. Every TU now has a fingerprint that can eliminate doubt in situations like these, but I wasn't quite around long enough for its universal adoption. My AUR account was seemingly disabled due to inactivity (?), and I'd be hard- pressed to keep a domain name for 8 years.
This email account is the same as the one linked to the Forum account: https://bbs.archlinux.org/profile.php?id=33199 /J -- http://jasonwryan.com/ GPG: 7817 E3FF 578E EEE1 9F64 D40C 445E 52EA B1BD 4E40
On 02/11/2018 02:54 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
* The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. * The website on the archlinux.org TU Fellow page is no longer functional. [2]
There has been some recent activity on the "itsbrad212" forum account (which was linked from the 2010 application), but I would not say this is sufficient confirmation.
I understand your cause for concern, so I'd like to know if there is any reasonable way to confirm my identity?
As mentioned by somebody else in this thread, a lot has changed since 2010, including PGP package signing in pacman. Every TU now has a fingerprint that can eliminate doubt in situations like these, but I wasn't quite around long enough for its universal adoption. My AUR account was seemingly disabled due to inactivity (?), and I'd be hard- pressed to keep a domain name for 8 years.
Do you still have access to your archweb account? If so, you could update that with your GPG key/new email address and post a confirmation email signed with that key to this thread. :D -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Do you still have access to your archweb account? If so, you could update that with your GPG key/new email address and post a confirmation email signed with that key to this thread. :D I don't believe Archweb was even active when I was a TU, sadly. :( I suppose the worst-case scenario would involve me reapplying in a more formal way. Although assuming this was indeed a case of "identity theft," I'm not sure that would clear up doubts about malicious intent. Brad
On 02/12/2018 02:28 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Do you still have access to your archweb account? If so, you could update that with your GPG key/new email address and post a confirmation email signed with that key to this thread. :D
I don't believe Archweb was even active when I was a TU, sadly. :(
I suppose the worst-case scenario would involve me reapplying in a more formal way. Although assuming this was indeed a case of "identity theft," I'm not sure that would clear up doubts about malicious intent.
It's been around in some incarnation since 2007, and you have a filled-in profile at https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella So I assumed you must have at one point had access to it, even if it's been long enough that you have forgotten and/or lost track -- I'm not sure offhand what precise role it had at all stages Arch's history. But there is also your BBS account mentioned in your original TU application which jasonwryan confirmed is linked to this gmail address, which seems to me to be a pretty reasonable indication that this email address legitimately belongs to the same person. :) (Thanks, Jason!) Will have to see in the morning what everyone else thinks though. If you could get in and update your archweb profile that would definitely be preferable. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
It's been around in some incarnation since 2007, and you have a filled-in profile at https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella
So I assumed you must have at one point had access to it, even if it's been long enough that you have forgotten and/or lost track -- I'm not sure offhand what precise role it had at all stages Arch's history.
Thanks for the help/advice Eli. If I remember correctly, my profile was filled out by sending the various pieces of information to an administrator for posting on the site. If I do in fact have access to archweb, it's not something I could easily get into unfortunately. I can also prove ownership of the email account (bradfanella@archlinux. us) that I sent my original application from in 2010, if that corroborates my claim.
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:03:32AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
It's been around in some incarnation since 2007, and you have a filled-in profile at https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella
So I assumed you must have at one point had access to it, even if it's been long enough that you have forgotten and/or lost track -- I'm not sure offhand what precise role it had at all stages Arch's history.
Thanks for the help/advice Eli. If I remember correctly, my profile was filled out by sending the various pieces of information to an administrator for posting on the site. If I do in fact have access to archweb, it's not something I could easily get into unfortunately.
I can also prove ownership of the email account (bradfanella@archlinux. us) that I sent my original application from in 2010, if that corroborates my claim.
Hello everybody, I kind of feel uncomfortable with this. I think that somebody who has resigned, is not able to sign his mails and seems to ignore requests of doing so, should apply over the normal way like all others do. That would just be fair to all newcomers. If I get this right there is no reliable verification possible for his identity. We should really add a rule for re-application in our TU-Bylaws. Just my 2 cents, Chris
On 02/12/2018 04:36 AM, Christian Rebischke via aur-general wrote:
Hello everybody, I kind of feel uncomfortable with this. I think that somebody who has resigned, is not able to sign his mails and seems to ignore requests of doing so, should apply over the normal way like all others do. That would just be fair to all newcomers. If I get this right there is no reliable verification possible for his identity. We should really add a rule for re-application in our TU-Bylaws.
This whole thing is getting mildly elitist. I think Brad has proven to everyone's satisfaction that he is who he says he is. And there is a reason he was elected in the past. With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following plan of action just to cover all our bases. Brad, please create a new AUR account, as you will need one to interact with the AUR for various TU duties if you are re-elected. (This is independent of whether you maintain *any* packages in the AUR, which I hope you will anyway, not that every current TU does). Please start signing your emails with a PGP key, it is good practice, and we will need your PGP key for the keyring and so forth if you get re-elected. Following which, I formally announce that on my prerogative as a TU, I am sponsoring Brad as a new TU applicant whether he needs it or not. The standard discussion period will commence from the time that email is sent. To whom it may concern: if a bunch of people decided someone has the necessary skills 7 years ago, those skills will not vanish because of time. Our standards are hardly super high anyway, and Brad's skills as a packager can be judged relatively easily, by taking a look at his TU packaging history at https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/log/?qt=author&q=bfanella (I've looked, he seems to have done just fine. Yay!) It is pretty easy to get up to date on actually relevant changes which mostly boil down to "use the standard pacman hooks if possible, now that pacman has hook support". I do *not* feel comfortable expecting or demanding that Brad maintain a few packages in the AUR first, unless we want to make the same rule about currently active TUs. This application requirement is meant to be an assessment of one's capabilities, which as a TU Fellow is not in question. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 02/12/2018 06:52 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
Brad, please create a new AUR account, as you will need one to interact with the AUR for various TU duties if you are re-elected. (This is independent of whether you maintain *any* packages in the AUR, which I hope you will anyway, not that every current TU does).
Please start signing your emails with a PGP key, it is good practice, and we will need your PGP key for the keyring and so forth if you get re-elected.
Following which, I formally announce that on my prerogative as a TU, I am sponsoring Brad as a new TU applicant whether he needs it or not. The standard discussion period will commence from the time that email is sent.
Per Eli's email, I have gone ahead and created a new AUR account under the alias "cesura" (my standard nick for the past few years). For clarity's sake, I've also made my bugtracker account under the same name. Based on the BBS policies, I don't believe a name change is possible, and plan to keep "itsbrad212" on the forums for the time being (as embarrassing as it may be). This will be my standard PGP signature moving forward, and I have my fingerprint set on the new AUR account. I'll use this email as an extremely brief "application" of sorts, to potentially give a bit more background and outline my immediate goals. As some of you may already know, I was elected as a Trusted User back in 2010, and had a nice run of around 1000 svn commits (maybe exactly?). I made the decision to step down as I did not feel like I had enough free time to uphold my responsibilities. As a TU in 2018, there would be a few projects that I'd like to tackle first, notably the MATE desktop and a few other orphaned packages that have drifted away from upstream versions. Lastly, thank you to Eli Schwartz for the sponsorship, and if there are any outstanding questions for me, don't hesitate to ask. Brad Fanella
On 02/12/2018 03:30 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Per Eli's email, I have gone ahead and created a new AUR account under the alias "cesura" (my standard nick for the past few years). For clarity's sake, I've also made my bugtracker account under the same name. Based on the BBS policies, I don't believe a name change is possible, and plan to keep "itsbrad212" on the forums for the time being (as embarrassing as it may be).
Not as a general rule, no, but if the forum mods are feeling nice then the forum software does allow it. :) Likewise, Bluewind can edit the bugtracker database. Perks of being friendly with the people in charge. :D
This will be my standard PGP signature moving forward, and I have my fingerprint set on the new AUR account. I'll use this email as an extremely brief "application" of sorts, to potentially give a bit more background and outline my immediate goals.
As some of you may already know, I was elected as a Trusted User back in 2010, and had a nice run of around 1000 svn commits (maybe exactly?). I made the decision to step down as I did not feel like I had enough free time to uphold my responsibilities. As a TU in 2018, there would be a few projects that I'd like to tackle first, notably the MATE desktop and a few other orphaned packages that have drifted away from upstream versions.
Lastly, thank you to Eli Schwartz for the sponsorship, and if there are any outstanding questions for me, don't hesitate to ask.
Sure thing, and I'm sure it will be awesome to have you back! As a matter of curiosity, MATE is already a pretty big and worthwhile task to handle, but what other orphans are you thinking of adopting? Handy link to the list of currently orphaned Community packages, for the curious: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?repo=Community&maintainer=orphan -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 02/12/2018 03:14 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
Not as a general rule, no, but if the forum mods are feeling nice then the forum software does allow it. :)
Likewise, Bluewind can edit the bugtracker database.
Perks of being friendly with the people in charge. :D
Heh, sounds like I need to be making some calls then. ;)
Sure thing, and I'm sure it will be awesome to have you back!
As a matter of curiosity, MATE is already a pretty big and worthwhile task to handle, but what other orphans are you thinking of adopting?
Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future updates when they come. There are no glaring holes in [community] right now, which is fantastic; most of the other orphans are small utilities and libraries with infrequent/discontinued releases, like cd-discid and imlib (version 1). Perhaps there are some packages that are becoming a burden on other TUs, or AUR packages that deserve a spot in the official repos. Maybe you have some recommendations? Brad
El Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:04:24 -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general escribió:
Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future updates when they come. There are no glaring holes in [community] right now, which is fantastic; most of the other orphans are small utilities and libraries with infrequent/discontinued releases, like cd-discid and imlib (version 1).
Actually I had already started updating it when you applied - so I finished it instead of leaving it half-done. But yes, it's about time someone stepped up to properly maintain it.
On 02/12/2018 05:04 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future updates when they come. There are no glaring holes in [community] right now, which is fantastic; most of the other orphans are small utilities and libraries with infrequent/discontinued releases, like cd-discid and imlib (version 1).
arojas does quite a lot of updating for orphaned packages like that. :) He was updating Cinnamon as well, until I applied, and he was very straightforward with me about "it would be great if someone who actually uses the packages could maintain it since all I do is bump the pkgver and try to see if it builds".
Perhaps there are some packages that are becoming a burden on other TUs, or AUR packages that deserve a spot in the official repos. Maybe you have some recommendations?
I thought the idea here was to see what you are interested in, not what I'm interested in. :p -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 02/12/2018 04:15 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
I thought the idea here was to see what you are interested in, not what I'm interested in. :p
True, true. The packaging scene right now is both a blessing and a curse: very few packages exist that don't have a maintainer, but at the expense of having interesting things to work on from the get-go. Much different than how I remember it, likely due to how many new faces we have around here. There are some python2-* and perl-* libraries that I've used that are currently orphaned, so that could be another starting point, but for now the short answer is: we'll see!
On 02/12/18 at 05:15pm, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 02/12/2018 05:04 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future updates when they come. There are no glaring holes in [community] right now, which is fantastic; most of the other orphans are small utilities and libraries with infrequent/discontinued releases, like cd-discid and imlib (version 1).
arojas does quite a lot of updating for orphaned packages like that. :) He was updating Cinnamon as well, until I applied, and he was very straightforward with me about "it would be great if someone who actually uses the packages could maintain it since all I do is bump the pkgver and try to see if it builds".
This is awesome, but we should have no issues with co-maintaining more packages. Other packages mind be busy, on vacation, to update their packages.
Perhaps there are some packages that are becoming a burden on other TUs, or AUR packages that deserve a spot in the official repos. Maybe you have some recommendations?
I thought the idea here was to see what you are interested in, not what I'm interested in. :p
Would be indeed, nice to hear what your background is and what sort of packages you would like to maintain and have experience with :) -- Jelle van der Waa
On 02/12/2018 03:30 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
On 02/12/2018 06:52 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
Brad, please create a new AUR account, as you will need one to interact with the AUR for various TU duties if you are re-elected. (This is independent of whether you maintain *any* packages in the AUR, which I hope you will anyway, not that every current TU does).
Please start signing your emails with a PGP key, it is good practice, and we will need your PGP key for the keyring and so forth if you get re-elected.
Following which, I formally announce that on my prerogative as a TU, I am sponsoring Brad as a new TU applicant whether he needs it or not. The standard discussion period will commence from the time that email is sent.
Per Eli's email, I have gone ahead and created a new AUR account under the alias "cesura" (my standard nick for the past few years). For clarity's sake, I've also made my bugtracker account under the same name. Based on the BBS policies, I don't believe a name change is possible, and plan to keep "itsbrad212" on the forums for the time being (as embarrassing as it may be).
This will be my standard PGP signature moving forward, and I have my fingerprint set on the new AUR account. I'll use this email as an extremely brief "application" of sorts, to potentially give a bit more background and outline my immediate goals.
As some of you may already know, I was elected as a Trusted User back in 2010, and had a nice run of around 1000 svn commits (maybe exactly?). I made the decision to step down as I did not feel like I had enough free time to uphold my responsibilities. As a TU in 2018, there would be a few projects that I'd like to tackle first, notably the MATE desktop and a few other orphaned packages that have drifted away from upstream versions.
Lastly, thank you to Eli Schwartz for the sponsorship, and if there are any outstanding questions for me, don't hesitate to ask.
Brad Fanella
Well, the discussion period was really over a couple days ago, whoops. :( Anyway, the voting period has now officially begun, so cast your votes everyone! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=104 -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On 02/21/2018 07:06 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
Anyway, the voting period has now officially begun, so cast your votes everyone! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=104
Voting period is over, and the results are in! Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation 23 7 8 38 Yes 82.61% Congrats, you are now (once again) a TU! :) Welcome back! I have upgraded your bugtracker and AUR accounts with the necessary permissions. Take a look at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#TODO_list_f... and take care of any remaining items. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
On Feb 28, 2018 08:40, "Eli Schwartz via aur-general" < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: On 02/21/2018 07:06 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
Anyway, the voting period has now officially begun, so cast your votes everyone! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=104
Voting period is over, and the results are in! Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation 23 7 8 38 Yes 82.61% Congrats, you are now (once again) a TU! :) Welcome back! I have upgraded your bugtracker and AUR accounts with the necessary permissions. Take a look at https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_ Guidelines#TODO_list_for_new_Trusted_Users and take care of any remaining items. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User (Responding on mobile so no signature set up) Thanks to Eli and the entire TU community! I'm hoping to be doing some good work around here. :) Regards, Brad
2018. 02. 12, 01.28, Brad Fanella via aur-general:
I'm not sure that would clear up doubts about malicious intent.
Do you still have access to your bug tracker account? Can you update your email address here? https://bugs.archlinux.org/user/7923 -- György Balló Trusted User
Do you still have access to your bug tracker account? Can you update your email address here? https://bugs.archlinux.org/user/7923 Yes I do. I've just gone ahead and updated my bug tracker account to reflect this, thank you. <Chris.Rebischke@archlinux.org> wrote: [...] is not able to sign his mails and seems to ignore requests of doing so [...] Frankly I'm not quite sure what that would prove. If I don't have a known signature on record, signing these emails doesn't do anything to verify my identity. To imply that I'm "ignoring requests" is a bit disingenuous when you consider that a PGP signature would change nothing here. All the best, Brad
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:52:04AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
Frankly I'm not quite sure what that would prove. If I don't have a known signature on record, signing these emails doesn't do anything to verify my identity. To imply that I'm "ignoring requests" is a bit disingenuous when you consider that a PGP signature would change nothing here.
All the best, Brad
Well, you could at least starting signing your mails with the next email, even if it is a new GPG key. It's something that we expect from TU-Applicants.. and I see no reason why you should excluded from this expectation. That maybe sounds a little bit harsh, but in my opinion you should re-apply on the normal way. I don't think there is a contra against re-applying like all others. I mean you were several years away, so I don't think that 1-2 weeks on top of it will be bad. chris
2018. 02. 12, 03.52, Brad Fanella via aur-general ezt írta:
Yes I do. I've just gone ahead and updated my bug tracker account to reflect this, thank you.
Thanks! :) Then I think the next step is to create a new account on AUR, add your PGP fingerprint to your aurweb profile, and post a PGP- signed message to this mailing list. -- György Balló Trusted User
Chris.Rebischke@archlinux.org> wrote: Well, you could at least starting signing your mails with the next email, even if it is a new GPG key. It's something that we expect from TU-Applicants.. and I see no reason why you should excluded from this expectation. That maybe sounds a little bit harsh, but in my opinion you should re-apply on the normal way. I don't think there is a contra against re-applying like all others. I mean you were several years away, so I don't think that 1-2 weeks on top of it will be bad. I respect that decision and will proceed with the standard application process, proper signatures and all. :) On Feb 12, 2018 4:09 AM, "Balló György via aur-general" < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: Thanks! :) Then I think the next step is to create a new account on AUR, add your PGP fingerprint to your aurweb profile, and post a PGP- signed message to this mailing list. I appreciate the help, thanks again! - Brad
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:18:45AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote:
I respect that decision and will proceed with the standard application process, proper signatures and all. :)
Thanks, I just wanted to be sure that we atleast vote about your re-application and it's nice btw that you want to adopt the MATE packages :) chris
participants (10)
-
Alad Wenter
-
Antonio Rojas
-
Balló György
-
Brad Fanella
-
Christian Rebischke
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Giancarlo Razzolini
-
Jason Ryan
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Marcin Wieczorek