[aur-general] REMOVAL: Discussion Period for sergej
Ronald van Haren
pressh at gmail.com
Thu Jan 17 02:57:54 EST 2008
On Jan 17, 2008 7:19 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008 7:46 AM, Firmicus <Firmicus at gmx.net> wrote:
> > I just looked at the TU Bylaws concerning TU removal
> > http://dev.archlinux.org/~simo/TUbylaws.html#Removal<http://dev.archlinux.org/%7Esimo/TUbylaws.html#Removal>
> > and it looks like this discussion is not yet valid, for it says that
> > "A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the
> removal of a Trusted
> > User."
> > AFAICS only one such motion has been made until now ...
> The discussion period was started because of the "special case" and is
> meant to be "automatically triggered" anyway. Keep in mind that even
> if this discussion ends in a vote (which it looks like it won't)
> you're free to vote no, that's why it's a vote.
> After some of the replies I read yesterday I was feeling good about
> this thread and was hoping we could work something out where sergej
> lets go of at least some of his packages but it seems like that's not
> going to happen any time soon. Sergej, you're saying you're willing to
> give up some of your packages but you're doing it in a way that people
> won't want bother and where you still keep as many as possible, what
> is the deal? You're so dead set on keeping as many as possible but
> I know I'm also guilty of putting some probably unnecessary packages
> into community but how about we try work something out with the way we
> put new packages into community? At the moment TUs are allowed to put
> whatever they like into community without notice to anyone, perhaps
> this needs to stop and we need some order about how we do things?
> While we wouldn't need to be as stringent as the devs about this it
> might be a good idea that set up something like an email of packages
> we want in community as well as some grace period before that. Perhaps
> we need to start a new thread about this.
> I don't think I've seen that good of an argument yet as to why sergej
> should keep so many packages or why it is not a good idea to have
> orphans, even if it means a lot of them. Emailing sergej to see if you
> can grab a couple of packages is *not* the correct way to go about
> this, I don't want any and the reason I brought this up isn't because
> I'm jealous of what he has. Please, come up with some proper arguments
> instead of being so wishy-washy and backing both of us up.
> Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett
> Provided that Sergej starts to vote in the current and upcoming voting
periods (sure you can miss a vote at some time, but you should be able to
vote in the majority of voting periods), and makes the best out of our
arguments I think we could solve the issue by discussion.
I looked through a couple of his packages with having only a few votes.
These packages, having an extremely small userbase have most of the time not
seen an update in a long period. PKGBUILD standards have evolved during the
last release of the packages yielding the PKGBUILDs do not follow these
standards anymore (for example !libtool option). Sure they do still work (I
presume), they just don't follow the standards we want all other users to
For a lot of these packages I do not see any use for them being in
[community]. Please drop a lot of them, orphan them, put them in unsupported
and post a list on an announcement on bbs so at least some of them get
picked up. The other packages will get adopted in time when somebody needs
them (which is questionable seeing the amount of votes). This will give you
time to properly maintain your remaining packages.
For all other TUs looking to adopt more packages, or upcoming TUs, there are
enough packages with a reasonably amount of votes in unsupported left to
adopt. Please choose to maintain them instead of packages you may use which
have only a very small amount of votes. Callan if you want to start a new
thread about this, feel free to do so this discussion does not get lost
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general