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

Connor Behan connor.behan at gmail.com
Sun Mar 24 16:50:38 EDT 2013

On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>>> 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 we have different definitions of "discussion".
> I would also say that if you have no arguments to support an opinion then it is
> baseless and should be re-examined.

If everyone who voted "No" was required to post, this list would be
cluttered with messages that basically say "I still agree with Dave."
Dave is one of the most active Arch users and he is known for being very
direct. Even though I voted "Yes", getting rejected by Dave and then
immediately sending a TU application that leaves out this details seems
like trying to pull a fast one. The number of "No" votes does not
surprise me because this point was adequately discussed.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 555 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20130324/5eab59e1/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list