[aur-general] REMOVAL: Discussion Period for sergej

bardo ilbardo at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 08:38:38 EST 2008

2008/1/18, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo at gmail.com>:
> At this point I can't see this discussion going very far, just like
> all TU discussions. I've been doing this for a year now and *nothing*
> has happened, nothing has improved and stuff has just gotten worse and
> worse as people stop caring. I don't think I care anymore either
> because the only people who who have any real opinion aren't TUs and
> are unable to vote, the rest of you just agree with both sides and
> contribute nothing. Why even bother?

Ok, you'll have my opinion here. But first, let me notice that the
bylaws don't say we *must* participate in TU discussions. Even though
discussing is useful, it is clearly stated that "All active TUs should
be participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to
continue meeting the quorums". So the accent is on the quorum, which
is reached by voting. I never missed a voting procedure, just like
others that didn't express their opinion in this or other threads.

Now, back on track.
The problems you highlighted on this thread surely exist, but I don't
think they can't be fixed. In fact, before starting an official
discussion period for Sergej's removal, I think you should have
started an unofficial thread to have a free discussion about how can
we solve them without being so drastic.

* The 600 packages. They are a lot, maybe too many, I'd suggest we
find a way to redistribute them a little and move some of them to
unsupported (maybe with some exceptions - I'm going to start a new
thread about it after I finish this e-mail).
A small addition: we always assumed that a TU should take as many
packages as he's able to maintain (I couldn't find this rule written
anywhere), but we never set a "sane maximum", even though this was
discussed after the willysilly mess. I think we should do it now.

* The voting procedures. I think this requires a reform, too. We
should clearly define how many consecutive voting procedures can be
missed before being automatically proposed for removal. Voting is
indeed a fundamental duty of a TU, and Sergej (and all the others)
should take part in it, trying to limit exceptions as much as
possible. I think we should also "ping back" after we miss a vote just
to say we're there and we didn't disappear.

The real problem here is that Sergej didn't do anything *clearly*
wrong. Since the bylaws include many interpretable rules, we can't
really blame him for doing what he thought was right (unless his final
objective is total arch destruction :-D ). Either we *really* try to
reform the bylaws or we should be prepared to handle situations like
this one. There has been a lot of talking after willysilly
disappeared, but no clear resolutions were made, if I remember


More information about the aur-general mailing list