[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
xyne at archlinux.ca
Sun Jan 21 20:40:43 UTC 2018
On 2018-01-21 10:04 +0100
Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
>So you suggest to remove the first part of the condition (before the
I made no such suggestion.
With the current bylaws, any 2 TUs can start a regular removal process for any
reason. This suffices to remove TUs who aren't "doing enough" according to the
majority of other TUs. The only difference from the special removal process is a
few more days and a higher quorum. The current bylaws are explicit and fine as
they are. There is no need to change them.
A TU who still shows signs of recent online activity should be given the full
discussion period of a regular removal process to offer an explanation or
resignation. After all, all TUs have contributed to this community and were
recruited due to qualities that we recognized in them at the time of their
application. A few extra days to hear their them out before kicking them out
is a costless courtesy. Unless they are preventing quorum from being
established, there is absolutely no harm nor pressing need to speed up the
Just to be clear, I support the proposed removals given the cited inactivity,
and I agree that doing nothing other than vote for over a year is not the
intended mission of a TU. The silence from both during the discussion period
is also strange given that they still log in to vote (vote timers?).
And again, the intention of the current bylaws was not to disregard voting as
an activity. The first part was to speed up the process for TUs who show no
visible online activity (i.e. TUs who have abandoned Arch completely, for
whatever reason), and the second part was to remove those who prevent the
establishment of quorum. A TU who votes is clearly still logging in to his or
her account and not preventing quorum. So yeah, a TU who does nothing but vote
for over a year should be removed, but by a regular removal process, which the
bylaws already handle.
Btw, we discussed this together over 4 years ago and we were in agreement then
about both the intention and the formulation. Here's a message in which you
clearly agreed with this intention:
You later approved my patch.
More information about the aur-general