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

Sébastien Luttringer seblu at seblu.net
Sun Mar 24 00:59:33 EDT 2013

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Xyne wrote:
> @TUs
> 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.

I was denied the first time I applied. I never heard strong arguments
about why from any TU.
The reason I found, is like here, an active TU express a tough opinion
(from a misunderstanding on awesome in my case).
I guess the team wants to be united and will not elect someone which
was strongly denied by one of us.
Now I see this as positive and only require to be solved before next

> There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next
> time.
There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
made up their minds.

@graysky: Please keep going and convince every TU that you have to be
aboard and reapply.


Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
GPG: 0x2072D77A

More information about the aur-general mailing list