[aur-general] Discussion regarding TU Swiergot

[Loui Chang]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 07:48:10AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>  Loui Chang wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 01:51:43PM -0500, Ghost1227 wrote:
> >   
> >>  Over the last few months, I have noticed that TU Swiergot has neglected 
> >> his  packages in community. I first noticed this with the cinelerra-cv 
> >> package  which was several months out of date and using the now-defunct 
> >> cvs repo  (cinelerra-cv switched to git two months ago). I posted a 
> >> cinelerra-cv-git  package to the AUR and attempted several times to 
> >> contact him. Two months  went by and I got no reply from any of the 
> >> several addresses he has, so I  discussed the situation with another TU, 
> >> then updated his cinelerra-cv  package and sent him another email 
> >> notifying him of the update. I have since  taken a look through his 
> >> packages and the bugtracker. He has several  packages marked out of date 
> >> (and some have comments explaining fixes), as  well as a handful of open 
> >> bugs on the bugtracker. Since I have been unable  to contact him through 
> >> any means, I propose orphaning his packages so that  more available TUs 
> >> can take over the responsibility for them. There are  several that I would 
> >> be happy to take over (assaultcube, cinelerra-cv, cube,  dosemu, 
> >> fcrackzip, nexuiz, qemu-launcher, stegdetect, steghide, supertux and  
> >> maybe a few others), and some of his packages (including some of the ones  
> >> i'll take) should be dropped to the AUR.
> >>
> >>  Discuss
> >>     
> >
> > Yeah sounds good. TUs should be just as accountable as regular users. If
> > he hasn't responded to emails about outdated packages, let others adopt
> > those packages. Does swiergot appear active according to TU votes?
> >   
> 
>  I think you are the only person who can tell this since we switched to 
>  voting on the AUR.  Care to look?

You can kind of check yourself with the new features. Yes swiergot did
vote in the last proposal (Changing [community] management system).

> 
> > Well, actually the bylaws state that we remove TUs only if they have
> > prevented a vote from reaching quorum. But so far all votes have made
> > it. So we can keep him for now if he does reappear.
> 
>  Relevant section from the bylaws:
> 
>  If a TU becomes inactive without declaring it, "disappears", someone must 
>  motion for their removal for reason of unwarranted and undeclared 
>  inactivity, and the normal procedure for the motion is followed.

I meant the automatic removal procedure. But yeah if someone is
uncomfortable with swiergot's scarceness he or she is encouraged to
motion for removal.