atsutane at freethoughts.de
Sun Dec 5 12:51:50 EST 2010
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:20:06 -0500 Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com>
> On Sun 05 Dec 2010 11:53 -0500, Kaiting Chen wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shacristo <shacristo at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Kaiting Chen
> > > <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > One of the stated purposes of the quorum is to "ensure that TUs
> > > remain active in the job that they have taken on." Allowing
> > > circumvention of the quorum requirements will obviously undermine
> > > that.
> > TU's have a lot of different responsibilities. Prolonging a decided
> > vote by six days to motivate or ensure that someone is active does
> > not make sense to me. --Kaiting.
> I would propose shortening the voting period then. I kind of like how
> the system is set up (not perfectly though) to remove the inactive TUs
I agree though I'd say 5 days has to be a minimum, everyone has a
couple of days when something needs to be finished and where except for
getting a few runs at the build server not much of the TU stuff can be
done, same goes for some days sick in bed.
Jabber: atsutane at freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/
Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 222 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the aur-general