[arch-dev-public] TU application process

Bruno Pagani bruno.n.pagani at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 11:13:54 UTC 2018

Le 06/11/2018 à 11:37, Allan McRae a écrit :
> On 6/11/18 8:15 pm, Bruno Pagani wrote:
>> Le 06/11/2018 à 11:12, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:09:03PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/18 7:54 pm, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>>>> Hello everybody,
>>>>> First of all, the following mail has nothing to do with the last two TU
>>>>> applications, it's a general view on the current TU application process.
>>>>> I would like to propose a new process for TU applications due to several
>>>>> reasons:
>>>> Read the TU bylaws.  It has specific instructions of where proposals
>>>> must be posted (hint: not here...).
>>>> A
>>> Hi Allan,
>>> This mail wasn't meant as proposal. It's just a general discussion about
>>> this topic and people said in the TU IRC channel yesterday, that arch-dev-public would be the
>>> right mailinglist for such discussion.
>>> chris
>> Specifically, we are also interested in the input of devs, not just TUs.
> Strange, given TUs are set-up to be an independently governed group from
> developers...
Yeah, but [community] used to be something completely separated from
[extra]. This is less and less the case (numerous packages were moved
from [extra] to [community] so that TUs could maintain them for
instance). The line between devs and TUs has become quite blurried, and
in my opinion who we accept as TU is highly depending on the meaning we
have for those repos and roles. I think devs should thus be concerned by
the quality of what we have in [community].
> But because you asked my opinion, I think a TU council is
> a really, really, really bad idea.  No need to set some TUs above
> others.
Well some already are, because they are devs too.
> We have never had a formal hierarchy in the developers (apart
> from our glorious leader),
Here again I would argue that they are devs that have [core] pushing
rights, as well as devs that are Master Key holders. So even if you
don’t want to write this black on white, this actually means a small
group of people have the real control over the distro (technically,
Master Key holders could revoke everyone else).
> and are instead run by those who step up to
> lead what needs done. I believe that this is what makes Arch work, and
> governance would be detrimental to the distribution as a whole.
Because you think Arch work, we (as some TUs/devs) think they are a
number of issues.
> Personally, I'd get rid of all quorum for electing a TU, and make
> inactive TUs be measured purely on the basis of package updating.  Most
> TU application discussions are inane beyond the customary package
> review.  And when someone applies and their packages are very bad, their
> sponsor should be held in shame.
> Finally, I don't want to hear what the minions are up to!  Get back to
> your own mailing list. :)

Thanks for your input, and this is the kind of opinions for which I said
we should have this discussion here.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20181106/2786b60d/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list