[aur-general] trusted users business
biru.ionut at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 18:31:19 EDT 2010
On 07/16/2010 01:08 AM, Ranguvar wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:40, Isaac Dupree
> <ml at isaac.cedarswampstudios.org> wrote:
>> On 07/15/10 12:57, Angel Velásquez wrote:
>>> Quoting the TU Bylaws Quote section:
>>> "This section deals with quorums, and the consequences for those that
>>> repeatedly keep the group from meeting them.
>>> Quorums were established to make sure that all TUs are having a say in
>>> the matters that they vote on, and to ensure that TUs remain active in
>>> the job that they have taken on. All active TUs should be
>>> participating in discussions and voting procedures in order to
>>> continue meeting the quorums.
>>> **For this reason, active TUs that keep quorum from being established
>>> on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they
>>> need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for
>>> removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. **"
>>> ...So IMO we should start a removalprocedure...
>> AFAICT, no vote-quorums have actually failed to be established in recent
>> history, so the above automatic-removal (**For this reason...**) clause does
>> not apply. (The general activity-guidelines found above it might, though.)
> I apologize for not voting in the past several TU elections.
> I've been a little distracted from Arch TU duties, but resolve to pay
> more attention to the mailing list in the future.
> Currently I'm on vacation in California, but I'll be back in New York
> in about a week.
> At that time I'll also be looking at the possibility of moving one of
> my AUR packages into [community], as I still don't have any on the
> repo (mostly because the majority of them are repackages, unsuitable
> for binary distribution, etc.).
> [Devin Cofer]
just mark yourself inactive in our wiki to prevent this kind of situations
More information about the aur-general