2010/12/4 Laurent Carlier <lordheavym@gmail.com>:

Le samedi 4 décembre 2010 23:58:33, Ionuț Bîru a écrit :

...

hi, because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure.

Conform bylaws a motion procedure should be sent on aur-general with reasons.

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 deviates from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.

Please discuss the motion(really discuss and not like in previous,couples of hours and the next days arguing about bylaws)

Ranguvar can defend himself.

I'm the second TU for the removal procedure for Ranguvar

Laurent Carlier

I should be the first one, but let's be the third this time. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Christopher Brannon <chris@the-brannons.com> wrote:

Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> writes:

...

2) no commits in community since the addition.

3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.

If he had ever been active, I would probably vote against the proposal. I hate to see this sort of thing.  Unfortunately, Ranguvar has been AWOL since he was elected.  Removal seems appropriate.

Ranguvar, you have my best wishes.

-- Chris

I also vote for removal. "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology."

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:01:51 -0500 Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:

...

3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.

Please discuss the motion(really discuss and not like in previous,couples of hours and the next days arguing about bylaws)

There's really not a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has some inside information on Ranguvar. It seems to me as if this falls under the domain of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity which is sufficient cause for removal as well as the "rule of thumb" offered in the bylaws regarding a maximum two month length of inactivity before a Trusted User is expected to step down. I assume that this motion is for inactivity_removal_of_TU and not general_removal_of_TU so that the discussion period should last for three days and the voting period for five with a sixty six percent quorum? -Kaiting.

So yes this one goes for three days, so tommorrow it ends, the first take was simply cancelled. So why the big mess? If someone has been inactive for more than two months, it is no matter at all if there are a few more days or not. Yes I agree with removing him, but I don't see any real sense behind your argumentation about changing the bylaws. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4