[aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Thu Jan 18 01:11:45 UTC 2018

On 01/17/2018 06:18 PM, Thorsten Toepper wrote:
> I'm no longer a TU so I can't see how active both speps and faidoc have
> been regarding participation in the votes. Yet the TU-Bylaws are pretty
> strict and given that Bluewind/Florian pointed out during the discussion
> period that both TUs had participated in proposal 99 that started on
> December 18 2017 which is in my TZ now exactly one month ago. Therefore
> the second requirement, to NOT do any special action on the AUR
> requiring TU privileges is not fulfilled, as participating in votes is
> exactly one of these TU privileges. Also the alternative option with
> inactivity due to non-participation in votes has been invalidated by
> this participation. Unless of course there have been six such votes
> before, again I can't see that nor if they themselves participated in
> the votes for proposal 100 and 101.

"as participating in votes is exactly one of these TU privileges"

This does seem to be unclear in the Bylaws. As someone mentioned on IRC:
> In my mind aurweb just happens to be a convenient place for the vote
> functionality to be located, but isn't actually part of the AUR.

Does voting, an action which doesn't seem to have a lot to do with
*being* a TU, merely deciding who should be allowed to do so, and is
more or less invisible to the community, constitute a "TU privilege" on
the AUR?

Looking at the context of previous amendment discussions, it seems like
the Special Removal was motivated by the desire to remove TUs who

block quorum by failing to vote,

fail to enhance the AUR as TUs are intended to do, by such qualifying
actions as:
- elevating packages to [community]
- contributing to the AUR as a good example
- moderating the package list or users
- participated in general discussion about the AUR on this list

To that end, as bgyorgy said, the "Arch User Repository" would be "that
which the regular users interact with to upload package recipes", and
totally unrelated to an administrative voting interface which is only
implemented in aurweb (not the AUR) insomuch as it would be bloat to
host it separately.

Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20180117/3e854a7f/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list