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

[Xyne]

Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:

>Yes, it is a bit ambiguous. The discussion in #archlinux-tu concluded that the
>voting being an the AUR was just happenstance and intent of the section was
>that voting not be included in point 2. With many/most of the most active TUs
>participating or present for that discussion, I would conclude that the general
>understanding of this section was followed in this case and the motions have
>passed.

I disagree. The intent of the first sectionm before the "OR", is to measure any
sort of activity. Updating a package, voting or posting a comment shows that
the TU is still logging in to the AUR and thus active in some sense. The point
of the first section was to provide a way to remove TUs who had simply
disappeared. This is as it should be. There is no mandated TU quota for package
actions.

The intent of the second section, after the "OR", is to ensure that TUs who
repeatedly disregard votes and possibly prevent quorum from being established
can be removed.

According to the bylawys, the critera for a special removal have not been met
and a normal removal should have taken place.

I move to ignore both votes. Two TUs who voted yes can start a new removal
process with the 7-day discussion period while also attempting to contact speps
and faidoc for comment. The matter will have been under visible discussion for
nearly 3 weeks before a new vote begins. That should be ample time for both to
offer an explanation or a resignation.

Regards,
Xyne