[aur-general] On TU application, TU participation and community/ package quality

Morten Linderud foxboron at archlinux.org
Sun Nov 11 23:53:30 UTC 2018

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 01:29:31PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
> ### TU council

I'll summarize this with: I'm unsure.

This feels like smacking a social problem with a hammer. I'm also afraid of
power imbalance as Ivy have noted. I think we should refocus this effort into
something else. Explained below.

> ### Minimum number of sponsors

I like this idea as a minimum amount of sponsorships. This could also help
getting the new TUs up to speed with how things work. This could combine well
with Jonathons suggestions of a "probation phase" (Which we have anyway since
key signing takes *AGES*).

This could also fit well with having co-maintainers? The sponsors should
co-maintain the packages the applicant adopts from AUR?

> ### Oversight committee

I think we should refocus this effort into something simpler; clarifying package
guidelines and actually make it easy for existing TUs to figure out *HOW* to
package different ecosystems. This could also contribute to removing old habits.

I have spent some hours upgrading out Go and Python guidelines to comfort to
something we can understand, agree on and doesn't forward bad habits from old
PKGBUILDs. A lot of knowledge is implicit, or just derived second-hand from
people that are presumed to know things. What happens if those people disappear
tomorrow? How is the committee suppose to define a `high-quality PKGBUILD` if we
can't distinguish peoples strong subjective opinions from factualities.

Morten Linderud
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181112/66ef4645/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list