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

David Runge dave at sleepmap.de
Wed Nov 28 19:32:12 UTC 2018

On 2018-11-28 20:10:52 (+0100), Robin Broda via aur-general wrote:
> On 11/18/18 3:52 AM, Xyne wrote:
> > On 2018-11-12 12:22 +0100
> > Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote:
> >> Not saying nobody does, but sponsoring should quite frankly be far more
> >> then just to agree and like that an applicant wants to become a TU.
> >> Redirecting to another possible sponsor doesn't mean you reject an
> >> applicant either and that's easy to make clear! To volunteer being a
> >> sponsor should mean to _potentially_ spend lots of time and patience in
> >> order to be a mentor that an applicant deserves.
> > 
> > However, rather than requiring multiple sponsors just to apply, I suggest
> > requiring multiple sponsors to proceed to the vote. The procedure would be:
> > 1. A TU identifies a good candidate and discusses the idea with them.
> > 2. The TU reviews the candidate's packages and community participation
> >    thoroughly and suggests improvements if necessary.
> > 3. Once all suggested improvements have been made, the TU agrees to sponsor and
> >    the candidate applies.
> > 4. The TU confirms and explains their sponsorship, citing specifics.
> > 5. Other TUs review the application. TUs that are confident in the candidate
> >    after review then vouch for the candidate by co-sponsoring them. In addition
> >    to the quality of packages, the co-sponsors should have at least been aware
> >    of the candidate within the community for an extended period of time.
> > 6. If x TUs agree to sponsor within the discussion period, the vote goes ahead 
> >    as usual. If not, the candidate has to wait as usual to reapply. During the
> >    wait, TUs can pay closer attention to the candidate until they feel
> >    confident enough to co-sponsor.
> Should we get these points formalized in the bylaws?
I think so.

> I feel like maybe if we split up each point and have a vote for each
> of them, we could figure out what exactly the others from the team are
> looking for - without blocking some of the proposals here by batching
> them up with the ones that weren't so well received.
I agree with that and generally like the ideas put forward by Xyne (in
extension of what Levente wrote).
Having them separetely votable is preferable I guess.

I see, that we need more participation in the voting and reviewing
process and I think that a more formalized rule set can help in doing so
(and not just having one or two people do the review and then feeling
overwhelmed at some point).

I also think, that this has the potential to raise the overall package
quality (aka teamwork) and help TUs across the board to learn new

I don't believe in a separate gremium, that will magically fix this.
Some TUs are exactly that involuntarily already (e.g. by choosing to
review) - or at least it somewhat feels like it ;-)
However, no single person can and or should do that all the time.

> What are your thoughts?
Let's do it!


-------------- 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/20181128/b7d4d8e4/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list