[aur-general] Enforcing TU Bylaws

[Callan Barrett]

On Dec 20, 2007 4:35 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla at 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