[aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period

Stefan Husmann stefan-husmann at t-online.de
Sat Mar 23 19:43:43 EDT 2013

Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne:
> Xyne wrote:
>> The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
>> It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
> Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
> rejected.
> @graysky
> I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these results. I think that you
> have demonstrated skills beyond several previously successful candidates and
> your contributions are valued by many in the community. I hope that this result
> will not leave a bad impression. You may apply again after 3 months if you
> choose.
> @TUs
> Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
> the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period.
> If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into
> account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they
> should be discussed.
> The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
> participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
> admitted that he may be "old and grumpy") and they were addressed without any
> further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so
> many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking
> back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of
> participation that has been split this close down the middle.
> There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next
> time. Voting is not an expression of personal opinion. It is a means of quality
> control and I would say that it is your obligation to participate in the
> discussion if you have opinions one way or the other.
> tl;dr: wtf?
> Regards,
> Xyne
I fully to Xyne agree here. This rejection was a big surprise to me. If there
was a silent agreement of 13 TUs with the reasons Dave might have caused to say no, this
should have made louder.

Best Regards Stefan

More information about the aur-general mailing list