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

[Lukas Fleischer]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 04:07:06, Xyne wrote:
> 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.

I find it ridiculous to call Trusted Users active ("in some sense") if
all they do is vote. The actual job of a Trusted User is to maintain the
AUR and the [community] repository. Imagine a world where all Trusted
Users would do nothing but add/remove new Trusted Users; neither the AUR
nor [community] are touched by anyone. Would you call such a group of
Trusted Users active? I doubt so.

Also, as I already mentioned in another reply, the intent of the current
statement in the bylaws is quite clear: voting should not be considered
as some sort of activity in the first section before the "OR". If you
count voting as activity, the condition "not active OR not voting" for
special removal makes no sense: "voting" implies "active", so "not
active" implies "not voting" and the statement "not active OR not
voting" is equivalent to "not voting". This means that the whole section
before the "OR" is unnecessary. I do not think we would have voted for
an amendment of the bylaws adding unnecessary junk.

I really hope we will not start reading and writing our bylaws like
pedantic lawyers, where every single formulation has to be chosen very
carefully. Voting is just a tiny part of the things we do, our main
focus should be on improving Arch Linux as a distribution.

Regards,
Lukas