[aur-general] REMOVAL: Discussion Period for sergej

[Sebastian Nowicki]

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:44:32PM +0100, Leslie P. Polzer wrote:
> Actually one of the main points of this discussion is exactly this.
> I have read a lot of people saying "no way Sergej is able to maintain
> this" -- of course without being able to prove it, as the current
> situation shows rather that he *can* maintain this.
> 
>   Leslie

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 05:45:30PM +0900, Callan Barrett wrote:
> ~70 of your packages are missing licenses.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
> ~440 are missing either a maintainer tag of contributor tag.                                                                                                                                                                                 
> ~550 are missing a maintainer tag.

Given the amount of packages that did not follow the guidelines, I beg
to differ. You wouldn't maintain 600 packages would you? And you most
definitely would not like to take a share (~20) of those packages
if Sergej was to disappear.

This isn't the main reason why this discussion was started. It was due
to Sergej not voting.

> There is one special case for removal, removal due to unwarranted and
> undeclared inactivity, for which standard voting procedure deviates
> from the above. This motion is also automatically triggered by
> repeated quorum offenses, as described in the Quorum subsection of
> this document. For this special case, SVP is followed with a
> discussion period of three days, a quorum of 66%, and a voting period
> of 5 days.