[aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar

[Linux Lover]

2010/12/4  <aur-general-request at archlinux.org>

>
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:07:54 -0500
> From: Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar
> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
>        <aur-general at archlinux.org>
> Message-ID: <20101204220754.GC32145 at celine.lan>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionu? B?ru wrote:
> > On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> > >On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang<louipc.ist at gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >>On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionu? B?ru wrote:
> > >>>On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionu? B?ru wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been
> only
> > >>>in one direction.
> > >>>
> > >>>i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for
> this
> > >>>and when you'll have time again you should consider applying again.
> > >>>
> > >>>Loui can you disable his account on sigurd?
> > >>>Andrea can you remove his privileges from bugtracker and forum?
> > >>
> > >>You still need to create a voting proposal.
> > >>Why doesn't anyone read the damned bylaws?
> > >
> > >I myself thought there would be voting, but I just realised Ionut
> > >inferred that we needn't vote from the following:
> > >
> > >"for which standard voting procedure deviates from the above."
> > >
> >
> > above being the voting procedure and from my understanding what is the
> > opposite of having a voting? NO voting.
> >
> >
> > we had this situation in the past and we didn't had any voting procedure.
> we
> > just removed it and we continued our business.
> >
> > with or without the vote, the result would be the same. And to be fair,
> we
> > are investing too much time in the removal, even more that he invested in
> > community.
>
> Then don't waste any time on it. Leave it alone.
> But if you do want to remove a Trusted User you MUST follow the bylaws.
> Three days discussion and Five days of voting for removal due to
> inactivity. Read the bloody bylaws.
>
> We cannot be at liberty to remove people without proper procedure.
>


Forgive me for speaking out of term here, but wouldn't it just be easier to
amend the bylaws to get away of that ambiguity? Two people reading it, two
different conclusions, sounds like a lawyer could make big money out of this
;-).