[aur-general] Official discussion period - Rules governing packages entering [community]

Callan Barrett wizzomafizzo at gmail.com
Fri Dec 5 10:13:44 EST 2008

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, regarding the proposal. I think that we should edit it so that
> the current proposal is for a three month probationary period during
> which the proposed changes will be used as rules, and at the end of
> which time we can vote again on whether to make the change permanant.
> I don't know if I make that clear, but if anyone has a question,
> please ask. I think this would address some of the concerns of such
> changes being difficult to undo at a later date, as it should give us
> an easy out if the changes prove to be ineffectual or overly onerous.

But why? Why make 2 definite sets of votes when it's just as easy to
bring this up again if it's not working out? This just seems like an
out for people who don't want this to happen, if you don't like it you
should vote no on it.

Callan Barrett

More information about the aur-general mailing list