[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Tue Jan 23 17:54:41 UTC 2018
On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz at archlinux.org>
> Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
> The current wording of the bylaws indicates that there are two ways for
> a TU to qualify for special removal due to inactivity:
> 1) Do not participate in voting, thereby potentially blockading a quorum.
> 2) Do not participate in general TU'ish activities like maintaining
> [community], administrating the AUR and the packagers and users therein,
> being representative of TUs in general on this mailing list by being
> awesome and stuff, i.e. posting (hopefully useful information that helps
> AUR users), and... um... voting?
> Point #2 calls out "performed any action that required TU privileges on
> the AUR", but does the tu voting interface on aurweb count as that or
> not? Moreover, do we *want* it to count? It seems to be somewhat
> defeating the purpose of the process, i.e. as long as a TU doesn't
> actually block quorum during a vote, they can remain while not actually
> performing any of the inherent functions of a TU.
> Now, I would argue that under a common sense interpretation the original
> intent of the bylaws was almost certainly that voting does not count as
> a "TU privilege", since a TU is someone who has the "privilege" to
> administrate AUR packages and users in order to keep good order, and
> select good packages to upload to [community].
> But bylaws exist in order to prevent people from having different
> interpretations of common sense. So this should be clarified no matter
Thus far, we've (I think) only seen people argue that:
1) this is what the bylaws really mean, let us clarify it for the sake
of less confusion some other day,
2) The bylaws do not mean this and should not do this.
Can I assume that means there is no one who feels this *should* be true,
but currently *isn't*?
Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for
grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general