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

Sébastien Luttringer seblu at seblu.net
Sun Mar 24 14:10:44 EDT 2013

On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne <xyne at archlinux.ca> wrote:
> Don deJuan wrote:
>>> 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.
> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
> issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives
> the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my
> reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No
> one did.
You explain again your former opinion.
It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone.
It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that
you convince me or others readers.

> I think I have said all that I have to say on this issue. I remain disappointed
> by how this played out and I am not alone.
12 TU are disappointed. 14 not. This is a result of a tight vote.

Please, don't says the whole system is crap because graysky was not elected.
We can vote no, otherwise we no longer vote.

Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer
GPG: 0x2072D77A

More information about the aur-general mailing list