[aur-general] Enforcing TU Bylaws

[w9ya at qrparci.net]

Exactly whom are we speaking about ?

Bob Finch


> On Dec 19, 2007 10:17 AM, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino
> <themolok.ml at 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