[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Wed Jan 24 16:18:13 UTC 2018

On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> 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:
>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-January/033789.html
>> 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
>> what.
> 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?

The discussion period is over, time to vote!


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/20180124/13516d89/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list