[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Wed Jan 31 20:14:29 UTC 2018
On 01/24/2018 11:18 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> 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:
>>> 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?
> The discussion period is over, time to vote!
The results are in!
Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation
26 9 4 39 Yes 81.25%
Seems like overall people thought this was a reasonable interpretation.
Rather than holding *another* round of votes to decide whether the
previous voting results (for #100 and #101) should be upheld two weeks
later, I think it is safe to declare that the previous proposals were
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