[aur-general] Enforcing TU Bylaws
After seeing Roman's post in the pressh TU vote I think we need to start enforcing the bylaws based on inactivity now it has become a problem, last thread we only *just* got half of the TUs to vote in it. I have no problem with pressh becoming a TU anyway as I don't believe someone should miss out because of lazy TUs or TUs marked active who are actually inactive. To combat this I think we should put into effect the "Quorum" section of the bylaws or at least some form of it to keep the votes up properly. I've looked at the last three votes we had, the following people have not voted for a long time (I don't even know who two are?) and should really be put up for removal if they have no explanation of their absence: xterminus vegai dejari encelo I don't like to remove TUs but I believe this is required for us to keep any order and keep from a snowball effect of just gathering more and more TUs over time. If these people do not respond I think it's best we start the removal procedure on all of them (provided people start *VOTING*) at some point we can work out. I also need to mention, aside from these 4 people I think there are about a third of the TUs who MUST vote in the currently running thread (unless of course you already have) or else they'll also have to be added to that list. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
On Wed 2007-12-19 10:04 , Callan Barrett wrote:
After seeing Roman's post in the pressh TU vote I think we need to start enforcing the bylaws based on inactivity now it has become a problem, last thread we only *just* got half of the TUs to vote in it. I have no problem with pressh becoming a TU anyway as I don't believe someone should miss out because of lazy TUs or TUs marked active who are actually inactive.
To combat this I think we should put into effect the "Quorum" section of the bylaws or at least some form of it to keep the votes up properly. I've looked at the last three votes we had, the following people have not voted for a long time (I don't even know who two are?) and should really be put up for removal if they have no explanation of their absence:
xterminus vegai dejari encelo
I don't like to remove TUs but I believe this is required for us to keep any order and keep from a snowball effect of just gathering more and more TUs over time. If these people do not respond I think it's best we start the removal procedure on all of them (provided people start *VOTING*) at some point we can work out.
I also need to mention, aside from these 4 people I think there are about a third of the TUs who MUST vote in the currently running thread (unless of course you already have) or else they'll also have to be added to that list.
FYI Encelo flagged himself as Inactive long time ago. ( http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#encelo ) I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed). -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
On Dec 19, 2007 10:17 AM, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI Encelo flagged himself as Inactive long time ago. ( http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#encelo )
Thanks, didn't see that when I checked.
I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed).
I agree with a ping thread, I disagree with TUs not being removed. Some of these people have been gone for months and it's supposed to be the rules (even if Simo says over and over he hates the bylaws) that they're removed even if they're marked inactive. Inactive might be ok for a while but eventually people will need to be pruned off. As for the "ping thread", this will probably work for those 4 listed as candidates for removal but it still is no good for those who are being lazy in their votes. It's time to stop being so wishy-washy about being a TU and give some poke to stop being lazy. If you can't handle being a TU all the time (not counting people who notify of their absence) don't be one at all. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
Exactly whom are we speaking about ? Bob Finch
On Dec 19, 2007 10:17 AM, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI Encelo flagged himself as Inactive long time ago. ( http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#encelo )
Thanks, didn't see that when I checked.
I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed).
I agree with a ping thread, I disagree with TUs not being removed. Some of these people have been gone for months and it's supposed to be the rules (even if Simo says over and over he hates the bylaws) that they're removed even if they're marked inactive. Inactive might be ok for a while but eventually people will need to be pruned off.
As for the "ping thread", this will probably work for those 4 listed as candidates for removal but it still is no good for those who are being lazy in their votes. It's time to stop being so wishy-washy about being a TU and give some poke to stop being lazy. If you can't handle being a TU all the time (not counting people who notify of their absence) don't be one at all.
-- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
Um, never mind.... I sometimes read my mail backwards, and I got to the mail in question. Very best regards; Bob Finch
Exactly whom are we speaking about ?
Bob Finch
On Dec 19, 2007 10:17 AM, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI Encelo flagged himself as Inactive long time ago. ( http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users#encelo )
Thanks, didn't see that when I checked.
I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed).
I agree with a ping thread, I disagree with TUs not being removed. Some of these people have been gone for months and it's supposed to be the rules (even if Simo says over and over he hates the bylaws) that they're removed even if they're marked inactive. Inactive might be ok for a while but eventually people will need to be pruned off.
As for the "ping thread", this will probably work for those 4 listed as candidates for removal but it still is no good for those who are being lazy in their votes. It's time to stop being so wishy-washy about being a TU and give some poke to stop being lazy. If you can't handle being a TU all the time (not counting people who notify of their absence) don't be one at all.
-- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
Liviu Librescu - În veci pomenirea lui. (May his memory be eternal.)
On Dec 18, 2007 10:17 PM, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we should open a "ping thread" were TUs must reply in say, 2 weeks, otherwise they will be flagged as Inactive (!= Removed).
Good idea, but i do not think this will make people vote. And this is the real problem here, right? -- []'s Hugo Doria http://hdoria.archlinux-br.org GNU/Linux user #359340 - http://counter.li.org
I also need to mention, aside from these 4 people I think there are about a third of the TUs who MUST vote in the currently running thread (unless of course you already have) or else they'll also have to be added to that list.
Yuk. For god's sake, please propose something more constructive, like a change of the quorum rules. I still do some TU stuff occassionally, although I don't vote right now. A bunch of more or less inactive TUs isn't a bad thing (esp. considering there aren't enough), as long as they don't mess up votes because of the quorum. Leslie (dejari) -- My personal blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/
On Dec 19, 2007 6:27 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Yuk. For god's sake, please propose something more constructive, like a change of the quorum rules. I still do some TU stuff occassionally, although I don't vote right now.
Why not? Are you marked as inactive? The rules aren't a problem, the problem is TUs being lazy about voting for new TUs which is a *really* important part of this system. I've talked to vegai and I agree with him that the activity people have on the AUR should also be a factor but fact is it's not the only part of this system. You update your packages? Great. You don't bother being involved with the selection of new Trusted Users? Unless you're marked explicitly as inactive you shouldn't be able to skip votes because you're not bothered. A bunch of more or less inactive TUs *is* a bad thing, they *do* mess up votes because of the quorum and the quorum should be in effect because without it as little as one person voting could result in a new TU otherwise. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
On Dec 19, 2007 6:27 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Yuk. For god's sake, please propose something more constructive, like a change of the quorum rules. I still do some TU stuff occassionally, although I don't vote right now.
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps. -- My personal blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/
On Dec 19, 2007 6:03 AM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 6:27 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Yuk. For god's sake, please propose something more constructive, like a change of the quorum rules. I still do some TU stuff occassionally, although I don't vote right now.
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps.
Sounds like you're trying to shirk responsibility here. I have to agree with Callan here. If you're active, you should note ignore the voting threads - it's part of the responsibilities of the TUs. If a person doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to be part of the group and simply wants to pump out packages it's probably a better idea to run your own custom repo instead of being part of what should be a democratic group.
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps.
Sounds like you're trying to shirk responsibility here. I have to agree with Callan here. If you're active, you should note ignore the voting threads - it's part of the responsibilities of the TUs. If a person doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to be part of the group and simply wants to pump out packages it's probably a better idea to run your own custom repo instead of being part of what should be a democratic group.
It depends on one's view of a TU's duties. Mine obviously differ considerably from yours. I cherish the friendship amoung TUs, but I currently confine myself to contributing the little bit here and there. One might call it following the “half a TU is better than none” philosophy. I don't see where this is a problem, but if it turns out to be one, I will yield and give up TU-ship. I'd like to encourage everyone here to share their opinion on this. Leslie -- My personal blog: http://blog.viridian-project.de/
On Dec 19, 2007 1:56 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps.
Sounds like you're trying to shirk responsibility here. I have to agree with Callan here. If you're active, you should note ignore the voting threads - it's part of the responsibilities of the TUs. If a person doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to be part of the group and simply wants to pump out packages it's probably a better idea to run your own custom repo instead of being part of what should be a democratic group.
It depends on one's view of a TU's duties. Mine obviously differ considerably from yours. I cherish the friendship amoung TUs, but I currently confine myself to contributing the little bit here and there. One might call it following the "half a TU is better than none" philosophy.
If I approached my paid job with the attitude of "doing half my work is better than doing none of my work" I'd be fired in a heartbeat, replaced by someone who'd do the whole job - I don't like that kind of attitude personally. However, seeing as how this is an elected volunteer position, the dynamic is different - you won't get 'fired' as a TU for only maintaining packages and never voting, for instance, although that seems to be what the original starter of the thread would like to start as a policy. It's been a while since I've read the bylaws, so I have no idea of whether it explicitly states that TUs have to vote, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the case, since quorum is expected.
On Dec 19, 2007 1:01 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 1:56 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps.
Sounds like you're trying to shirk responsibility here. I have to agree with Callan here. If you're active, you should note ignore the voting threads - it's part of the responsibilities of the TUs. If a person doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to be part of the group and simply wants to pump out packages it's probably a better idea to run your own custom repo instead of being part of what should be a democratic group.
It depends on one's view of a TU's duties. Mine obviously differ considerably from yours. I cherish the friendship amoung TUs, but I currently confine myself to contributing the little bit here and there. One might call it following the "half a TU is better than none" philosophy.
If I approached my paid job with the attitude of "doing half my work is better than doing none of my work" I'd be fired in a heartbeat, replaced by someone who'd do the whole job - I don't like that kind of attitude personally.
However, seeing as how this is an elected volunteer position, the dynamic is different - you won't get 'fired' as a TU for only maintaining packages and never voting, for instance, although that seems to be what the original starter of the thread would like to start as a policy. It's been a while since I've read the bylaws, so I have no idea of whether it explicitly states that TUs have to vote, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the case, since quorum is expected.
From the by laws: A TU may declare themselves inactive, for instance if they are going on vacation, by sending a message to tur-users. TUs are expected to step down altogether if they plan on becoming inactive for a period longer than 2 months. It is expected that while inactive, a TU is unable to maintain packages and partake in normal TU activities.
On Dec 19, 2007 1:08 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 1:01 PM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007 1:56 PM, Leslie P. Polzer <leslie.polzer@gmx.net> wrote:
Why not? Are you marked as inactive?
I can declare myself to be so, if it helps.
Sounds like you're trying to shirk responsibility here. I have to agree with Callan here. If you're active, you should note ignore the voting threads - it's part of the responsibilities of the TUs. If a person doesn't want to do this, doesn't want to be part of the group and simply wants to pump out packages it's probably a better idea to run your own custom repo instead of being part of what should be a democratic group.
It depends on one's view of a TU's duties. Mine obviously differ considerably from yours. I cherish the friendship amoung TUs, but I currently confine myself to contributing the little bit here and there. One might call it following the "half a TU is better than none" philosophy.
If I approached my paid job with the attitude of "doing half my work is better than doing none of my work" I'd be fired in a heartbeat, replaced by someone who'd do the whole job - I don't like that kind of attitude personally.
However, seeing as how this is an elected volunteer position, the dynamic is different - you won't get 'fired' as a TU for only maintaining packages and never voting, for instance, although that seems to be what the original starter of the thread would like to start as a policy. It's been a while since I've read the bylaws, so I have no idea of whether it explicitly states that TUs have to vote, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the case, since quorum is expected.
From the by laws: A TU may declare themselves inactive, for instance if they are going on vacation, by sending a message to tur-users. TUs are expected to step down altogether if they plan on becoming inactive for a period longer than 2 months. It is expected that while inactive, a TU is unable to maintain packages and partake in normal TU activities.
Furthermore, according to the AUR Guidelines wiki page, a TU is defined: The Trusted User (TU) is a member of the community charged with keeping the AUR in working order. He/she maintains popular packages, and votes in administrative matters. A TU is elected from active community members by current TUs in a democratic process. TUs are the only members who have a final say in the direction of the AUR.
On Dec 20, 2007 4:01 AM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
However, seeing as how this is an elected volunteer position, the dynamic is different - you won't get 'fired' as a TU for only maintaining packages and never voting, for instance, although that seems to be what the original starter of the thread would like to start as a policy. It's been a while since I've read the bylaws, so I have no idea of whether it explicitly states that TUs have to vote, but I'd be surprised if that isn't the case, since quorum is expected.
The TU bylaws are basically all about voting, the actual maintaining of packages isn't really even mentioned in them. I want the bylaws enforced because currently too many people are considered active but also don't think they need to vote which has, as you can see, been putting the votes under quorum. I think this is also the first time we've ever been under quorum in a vote, that's why it's now a real problem. When I started this thread I never wanted any TUs removed (except for the ones who are actually completely gone), I wanted people to get a clue that they're giving a half-assed (because that's what it is, not "half a TU is better than none") effort towards a job they volunteered for and said every time before they were sponsored that they would do it to the best of their ability. If you can't do your job properly, whether it's a pay job or not, then you shouldn't do it at all, this is a big project and I'm sure there are plenty of other people willing to replace you. For the people who are now declaring themselves as inactive now can you please also keep in mind that should be no longer than two months and could you please make a separate thread regarding it? -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
I wrote a couple of mails to this list, but seems like I had a wrong email address registered to the ML so none of my messages got through the filters. Incidentally, none of my votes have gone through either. Here's a digest: You don't bother being
involved with the selection of new Trusted Users? Unless you're marked explicitly as inactive you shouldn't be able to skip votes because you're not bothered.
From the very beginning, I felt uneasy about that part of the bylaws, but I accepted it since I did not think anyone would think of enforcing it unless
No, no no. We cannot force people to vote, that also means that the vote means nothing. things get very bad. Perhaps we should change that bylaw? [and on another mail] The most important function of a TU is making packages to a central repository that people trust. It is why the whole thing exists, is it not? For me personally, this arrangement has worked excellently exactly because I have been able to concentrate solely on the work. In fact, this is why Arch Linux has worked excellently. It is mostly clean of BS, and so are we. Instead of going into a flamewar (which I admit inciting a bit), perhaps we should try a more positive approach to the problem, which is not "How can we punish those uppity drones" but "Why don't the drones vote?" I usually don't vote when the applicant is somebody I don't know. In that case, my vote would be random whatever the case. What is the point in forcing uninformed people to vote? --vk aka vegai
On Dec 20, 2007 1:35 AM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
No, no no. We cannot force people to vote, that also means that the vote means nothing.
You can abstain from the vote. Valid "votes" are yes/no/abstain. Still, if a TU abstains every single vote coming down the pipe then, as wizzo said, I'm sure there are many other people willing to do your job AND vote.
On Dec 20, 2007 9:52 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:35 AM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
No, no no. We cannot force people to vote, that also means that the vote means nothing.
You can abstain from the vote. Valid "votes" are yes/no/abstain.
Still, if a TU abstains every single vote coming down the pipe then, as wizzo said, I'm sure there are many other people willing to do your job AND vote.
"Many other people", are you fucking kidding me? I thought we had a huge deficit of active TUs and developers? --vk
On Thursday 20 December 2007, Vesa Kaihlavirta wrote:
"Many other people", are you fucking kidding me? I thought we had a huge deficit of active TUs and developers?
Easy dude! There's no need to be rude! I'm pretty sure there's many people that would like to become a TU, as myself. However, I'm not ready as I need to learn a lot of things and hopefully any TU kind enough to teach me ;) If there's a real need of TU I'm willing to help! Damnshock PD: If I shouldn't have written in this topic I'm sorry, i just wanted to make Vesa notice that there's people out there willing to help :)
On Dec 20, 2007 2:49 AM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 9:52 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 1:35 AM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
No, no no. We cannot force people to vote, that also means that the vote means nothing.
You can abstain from the vote. Valid "votes" are yes/no/abstain.
Still, if a TU abstains every single vote coming down the pipe then, as wizzo said, I'm sure there are many other people willing to do your job AND vote.
"Many other people", are you fucking kidding me? I thought we had a huge deficit of active TUs and developers?
Depends on how you define deficit. I'm claiming that people are _willing_, but that is not the same as being _qualified_ In the future, would it be possible to not be so temperamental with the responses? We're all adults here and should conduct ourselves as such. I'll be the first one to say "man, that's a stupid idea", but you won't see me spouting off "man you're a fuck wad!" anytime soon.
On Dec 20, 2007 4:35 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps we should change that bylaw?
I don't think any of the bylaws should be changed, they seem to be perfect for this type of situation.
The most important function of a TU is making packages to a central repository that people trust. It is why the whole thing exists, is it not? For me personally, this arrangement has worked excellently exactly because I have been able to concentrate solely on the work. In fact, this is why Arch Linux has worked excellently. It is mostly clean of BS, and so are we.
Instead of going into a flamewar (which I admit inciting a bit), perhaps we should try a more positive approach to the problem, which is not "How can we punish those uppity drones" but "Why don't the drones vote?" I usually don't vote when the applicant is somebody I don't know. In that case, my vote would be random whatever the case. What is the point in forcing uninformed people to vote?
I agree, the most important part of what we do is maintaining the AUR (including community) but it is certainly not the only part of it. The community (as in people) area of being a TU is also part of the work, voting for people and staying informed is part of the work, not just maintaining your packages. As I said in the last email, the last thing I wanted to do when I started this thread was to remove Trusted Users who are in fact technically active, I want them to start voting. Finally, you're allowed to abstain if you like, it still counts, but even if you keep doing that I don't think it's any better. It may not be possible to get to know an applicant but you can at least review their work and vote accordingly. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
On Dec 20, 2007 10:19 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 20, 2007 4:35 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps we should change that bylaw?
I don't think any of the bylaws should be changed, they seem to be perfect for this type of situation.
Well, if I'm the only one who sees the need for such a change, I won't bother to call for a vote about it. --vk
My take on this whole issue: I strongly believe that laws are made for the people, i.e. for our convenience, and not the other way around. The laws referenced in the current discussion are not written in stone. If it doesn't suit a situation, let us amend it. IMO, a provision must be made where a TU can be allowed to remain so even if he/she is not interested in administrative activities (like electing new TUs or sponsoring etc.) but is participating in other helpful activities like packaging, discussions, bug reports etc. I consider administrative activities to be "extra" activities of a TU. And I feel asking a TU to step down because of refusal to participate in voting is not a good idea. I urge other TUs to kindly reconsider and not oust useful members for this reason alone. (One more thing, has anyone considered disabling xterminus's CVS login? You know... to avoid "accidents" if the login credentials falls into wrong hands as we have no idea what's happening at his end.) Thanks, -- Vinay S Shastry http://thenub.one09.net
On Dec 20, 2007 12:42 PM, Vinay Shastry <vinayshastry@gmail.com> wrote:
I consider administrative activities to be "extra" activities of a TU. And I feel asking a TU to step down because of refusal to participate in voting is not a good idea. I urge other TUs to kindly reconsider and not oust useful members for this reason alone.
You know. Everyone has this attitude when they're young. I see it in a lot of people entering the work force. "I'm a programmer, I don't have to deal with people!" Surprise! Administrava is part of life. To get things done as a "collective" there needs to be collaboration. There needs to be agreement, and people need to be involved. Here's a solution for you. The TU bylaws show that everything can be done by voting. If people refuse to vote, then they cannot vote ANYWHERE for ANY topic. This way you get two classes of TUs: those who make the decisions (and of course do all the other duties too), and those who make packages. That means that it is no longer a collective, but a bureaucracy.
On Dec 21, 2007 12:34 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Here's a solution for you. The TU bylaws show that everything can be done by voting. If people refuse to vote, then they cannot vote ANYWHERE for ANY topic.
This way you get two classes of TUs: those who make the decisions (and of course do all the other duties too), and those who make packages. That means that it is no longer a collective, but a bureaucracy.
Hmm, point taken sir! -- Vinay S Shastry http://thenub.one09.net
On Dec 21, 2007 4:04 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This way you get two classes of TUs: those who make the decisions (and of course do all the other duties too), and those who make packages. That means that it is no longer a collective, but a bureaucracy.
I just hope the TU system doesn't have to degenerate into two separate groups of people, but rather people who can do their job properly. Shastry, I don't see why you're defending people when you are doing your job as a TU great. The laws are for convenience and it is convenient that there are rules set for what to do with people who refuse to do their job properly. Does anyone know how long encelo has been inactive and where he stated this? -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
On Fri 2007-12-21 14:33 , Callan Barrett wrote:
On Dec 21, 2007 4:04 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
This way you get two classes of TUs: those who make the decisions (and of course do all the other duties too), and those who make packages. That means that it is no longer a collective, but a bureaucracy.
I just hope the TU system doesn't have to degenerate into two separate groups of people, but rather people who can do their job properly. Shastry, I don't see why you're defending people when you are doing your job as a TU great. The laws are for convenience and it is convenient that there are rules set for what to do with people who refuse to do their job properly.
Does anyone know how long encelo has been inactive and where he stated this?
Last time I saw him in ml was here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2005-September/001937.html He still updates his packages in AUR, but actually he doesn't have any package in [community], IIRC voidnull adopted them all. -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User Please send personal email to themolok@gmail.com Public Key http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xFE0270FB GPG Key ID = 1024D / FE0270FB 2007-04-11 Key Fingerprint = 9AF8 9011 F271 450D 59CF 2D7D 96C9 8F2A FE02 70FB
We continued this with Callan aka wizzo on IRC. I'll summarize, without the gnashing of teeth and pieces that incriminate me^W^W^W^W^W other fluff. <vegai> I was looking for that Roman's mail you mentioned. <wizzo> http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/006387.html <vegai> thanks. <vegai> Ok, that certainly is a problem. <vegai> although it doesn't remove from the point that voting for new TUs is largely pointless <wizzo> why? <vegai> you didn't seem to reply my mail fully <vegai> especially the part, <vegai> We simply cannot protect ourselves fully <vegai> from cases like that, since the one and only way to know if a person is <vegai> worth anything is to give that person a chance to work and see what happens <vegai> in half a year. <vegai> <vegai> by this I don't mean letting xterminus hang on for that long <vegai> but that when we get new people in, there's no way to know ahead of time if they're good or not <vegai> i.e. whether they'll take 1000 packages and go or not <wizzo> ok I interpreted your email wrong, I apologize <vegai> could we have seen that when he applied? <wizzo> of course not <vegai> so what is the point of voting? <wizzo> I understand we always run that risk, we can't stop it <wizzo> because it gives us all a say in what happens <wizzo> getting a sponsor is normally a good indicator that you can make packages <wizzo> the vote is so everyone can give their say on it <wizzo> I think people who just vote yes without looking at the applicant's packages is just as bad as not voting at all anyway <wizzo> but that's not easy to stop <vegai> also, it seems that a mailing list is not a very reliable medium for this <vegai> since 3 of my previous votes were lost <vegai> dunno what would be. <vegai> perhaps there should be a TU application somewhere for all these things <vegai> not try to tweak something existing to poorly support what we need, but something we create specifically <vegai> can I/should I post this to the ML? <wizzo> I agree with what you're saying but I think this need some further discussion with more people than just us I suppose the two new things that came from there are 1) TU voting. Is it pointless in its current form? Are we pretty much reduced to rubber stamps in those elections? 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities? ( 3) wizzo agrees with what I'm saying :) Also, I think we agreed on that no active TU should feel they should leave because of this thing. --vk vegai
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:53:50 +0200 "Vesa Kaihlavirta" <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote: [cut]
2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities? Mailing list is our main tool; and it works beautiful. We have also a BugTracker, that too many of us seems to ignore.
By the way, seems that we have all, but use nothing. -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User
On Dec 21, 2007 7:53 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
1) TU voting. Is it pointless in its current form? Are we pretty much reduced to rubber stamps in those elections? 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities?
I'm very happy that we can get this all worked out, the last thing I ever wanted was for our technically active TUs to leave and I'm sorry if it came off that way. Regarding these two points, I think voting is still important as it remains a tool for some degree of quality checking and more importantly a way for all TUs to keep in contact with each other and keep up to date with what's currently happening. I think instead of changing the fact that we vote we need to make it more convenient and integrated to the AUR. I've talked with both Bjorn and Mikko on IRC and we have come up with the loose idea of a voting and application system that is integrated with the AUR (and more automated). I think if this was created properly it seems to solve a lot of problems and the AUR serves as an already standing code base for us to build on without a lot of trouble hopefully (considering things like account set up). We really need to get this started though if it's going to get anywhere and keep it as small as we can so it doesn't become too big to handle. I don't want it to be like "oh, we can leave that for AUR2".
Also, I think we agreed on that no active TU should feel they should leave because of this thing.
Again, no TU should leave because of anything I've said. It wasn't supposed to make people leave. -- Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
We continued this with Callan aka wizzo on IRC. I'll summarize, without the gnashing of teeth and pieces that incriminate me^W^W^W^W^W other fluff. <vegai> I was looking for that Roman's mail you mentioned. <wizzo> http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/006387.html <vegai> thanks. <vegai> Ok, that certainly is a problem. <vegai> although it doesn't remove from the point that voting for new TUs is largely pointless <wizzo> why? <vegai> you didn't seem to reply my mail fully <vegai> especially the part, <vegai> We simply cannot protect ourselves fully <vegai> from cases like that, since the one and only way to know if a person is <vegai> worth anything is to give that person a chance to work and see what happens <vegai> in half a year. <vegai> <vegai> by this I don't mean letting xterminus hang on for that long <vegai> but that when we get new people in, there's no way to know ahead of time if they're good or not <vegai> i.e. whether they'll take 1000 packages and go or not <wizzo> ok I interpreted your email wrong, I apologize <vegai> could we have seen that when he applied? <wizzo> of course not <vegai> so what is the point of voting? <wizzo> I understand we always run that risk, we can't stop it <wizzo> because it gives us all a say in what happens <wizzo> getting a sponsor is normally a good indicator that you can make packages <wizzo> the vote is so everyone can give their say on it <wizzo> I think people who just vote yes without looking at the applicant's packages is just as bad as not voting at all anyway <wizzo> but that's not easy to stop <vegai> also, it seems that a mailing list is not a very reliable medium for this <vegai> since 3 of my previous votes were lost <vegai> dunno what would be. <vegai> perhaps there should be a TU application somewhere for all these things <vegai> not try to tweak something existing to poorly support what we need, but something we create specifically <vegai> can I/should I post this to the ML? <wizzo> I agree with what you're saying but I think this need some further discussion with more people than just us I suppose the two new things that came from there are 1) TU voting. Is it pointless in its current form? Are we pretty much reduced to rubber stamps in those elections? 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities? ( 3) wizzo agrees with what I'm saying :) Also, I think we agreed on that no active TU should feel they should leave because of this thing. --vk vegai
2007/12/19, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com>:
To combat this I think we should put into effect the "Quorum" section of the bylaws or at least some form of it to keep the votes up properly.
I agree. I think we need to start enforcing the TU Bylaws. -- Giovanni Scafora Arch Linux Trusted User (voidnull) http://www.archlinux.org linuxmania@gmail.com
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:04:52 +0900 "Callan Barrett" <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
After seeing Roman's post in the pressh TU vote I think we need to start enforcing the bylaws based on inactivity now it has become a problem, last thread we only *just* got half of the TUs to vote in it. I have no problem with pressh becoming a TU anyway as I don't believe someone should miss out because of lazy TUs or TUs marked active who are actually inactive.
Another point that (IMHO ) need attention is the bugtracker, also know as flyspray. I see too many bugs ( in some cases with attached patch ) that aren't checked and fixed. I want to remember at all TUs that we have our section, I'm not anyone in Arch but, please, be more active on this :) (I'm talking about Community section of flyspray, not the others) -- JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User
participants (12)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino
-
Callan Barrett
-
Giovanni Scafora
-
Hugo Doria
-
JJDaNiMoTh
-
Leslie P. Polzer
-
Marc Deop i Argemí
-
Travis Willard
-
Vesa Kaihlavirta
-
Vinay Shastry
-
w9ya＠qrparci.net