[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar take 2

Kaiting Chen kaitocracy at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 03:01:51 EST 2010

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru at archlinux.org> wrote:

> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the
> "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that
> i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.
> Please discuss the motion(really discuss and not like in previous,couples
> of hours and the next days arguing about bylaws)

There's really not a whole lot to discuss here unless someone has some
inside information on Ranguvar. It seems to me as if this falls under the
domain of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity which is sufficient cause
for removal as well as the "rule of thumb" offered in the bylaws regarding a
maximum two month length of inactivity before a Trusted User is expected to
step down. I assume that this motion is for inactivity_removal_of_TU and not
general_removal_of_TU so that the discussion period should last for three
days and the voting period for five with a sixty six percent quorum?

Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/

More information about the aur-general mailing list