[aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws

Xyne xyne at archlinux.ca
Wed Aug 7 07:33:59 EDT 2013

On 2013-08-02 15:40 -0300
Angel Velásquez wrote:

>Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used
>just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff
>like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we
>mention this subject.

Can you more specific? Which bylaws have been ignored? When? By whom? As I was
the one who brought up the issue of quorum, the implication is that I have been
looking the other way on the rest of the bylaws. Is that what you meant to

>So, what's the point of having a Bylaw if you will not follow it?, why
>don't modify it and remove that part that you don't want to be aware?,
>being a TU is not about just delivering packages and orphaning /
>splitting packages on the AUR, TUs must work as a group, and it used to
>be like that when I was part of the team (I still feel part of the team
>but seems that oficially I am not a TU, a corner case that is not well
>documented on the Bylaws btw).

What exactly are you suggesting? What is there to do as a team that we are not
doing as a team? This sounds a bit like "when I was your age, bands were better
and the lyrics meant something". If you mean there have been a number of
additions to the team who have been relatively quiet members then I might
agree, but that in itself is neither against our bylaws. It would only be a
real problem if it prevented quorum, but so far it hasn't. Personally, I don't
mind with having extra hands around even if they're idle most of the time. It's
not like we're paying for extra upkeep. Of course, that doesn't mean that "TU"
should be nothing more than an extra title in the community. I just don't see
the TUs as a three-letter Greek fraternity.

>So, according to that, I don't want to say names (i did said those names
>on the irc channel when I found the quorum situation on the last SVP but
>as I've said nobody react .. bad bad bad, guys.. dissapointing I must
>say), but I still feel that TUs must do that, not a guy which is not
>completely a TU -yes, me-.

I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant
discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even
important decisions are made there. That is not the place for it. This mailing
list is the official means of TU communication. Don't show up here and casually
mention that you have disclosed information there then withhold it here. It is
petty and childish in my opinion. If you will say something about someone to a
group of people when the person is not there, but won't say it again then the
person is, then you probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with.

>Please check the last SVP and check who didn't voted, and some TU call
>the rest of the group for either following the Bylaws, or call for a
>modification of these Bylaws and allow these cases.

The bylaws have been followed:
"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

I understand that you have spotted an issue with our adherence to the bylaws,
but it is not clear to me what that issue is, so I do not know how to even
begin addressing it.


More information about the aur-general mailing list