[aur-general] TU membership application
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Sun Aug 18 03:46:21 UTC 2019
On 8/17/19 2:49 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote:
> That said, I think its a bit unfair to say that I went off and found
> another sponsor without batting an eye - asking Alexander and Sergej
> seemed appropriate as they'd both adopted one of my packages, I had
> worked with you to resolve some of my issues, I've gone over all of my
> packages with a fine-toothed comb many times now, and got more help as
> needed. I didn't suppose that having you decline sponsorship should
> deter me from eventually applying until getting your approval. I
> regret that we didn't have better communication, though.
I don't see anyone implying you aren't allowed to apply until the person
who declined to sponsor you says it is okay.
All that anyone is saying is that you're supposed to provide fair
disclosure of the fact that it happened.
On 8/17/19 6:59 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-08-17 at 21:58 +0200, Robin Broda wrote:
>> On 8/17/19 8:49 PM, Jean Lucas wrote:
>>> In totality, I asked 4 TUs - Alexander, Sergej, Alad, and you.
>> Why did you not make this clear in your application?
> Since there is no formal guideline for writing an application AFAICT, I
> thought it sufficient to include the names of those who agreed to
> sponsor me.
>> I'm sure you've read the wiki article on Trusted Users -
>>> *Note*: Should the TU you contact decline to sponsor your
>>> you should make this fact known if you seek sponsorship from
>>> another TU.
>> Have you at least told xyproto & sergej that you have approached alad
>> and me,
>> and the reason for me declining sponsorship?
> I have not. I contacted Alexander before you something like 2 months
> ago, and your formal refusal for sponsorship came in about 2 weeks
> later. Admittedly, I forgot to mention that you'd declined my
> sponsorship to both of them.
Hmm, did you contact him about sponsorship, specifically? You say that
he offered to sponsor you "after a few chat sessions", and that your
first contact with him (about him adopting your package) was before your
first contact with Robin. If you only contacted him about sponsorship
after Robin declined, I'm not even sure why it is relevant if you
contacted Alexander about unrelated things. If you were in discussion
with Alexander about sponsorship before you asked Robin, I could at
least understand how such forgetfulness happened.
On 8/17/19 8:46 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-general wrote:
> For the record, it says "Should the TU you contact decline to sponsor
> your application, you should make this fact known if you seek
> sponsorship from another TU." - that should be reworded to something
> similar to what you said instead, given the recent amendment to the TU
> bylaws of needing two sponsors instead of one.
> Either way, I had forgotten about that part, so I failed to bring it
> up with the TUs I was in contact with. My apologies. In hindsight, it
> would've been a pragmatic idea.
I... really don't see what is confusing or ambiguous about the wiki? My
reading of the wiki does not say that you must acknowledge it to the
whole world on this mailing list (it may or may not be a good idea to do
so) but you sure had better acknowledge this to the TUs who you later
approach for sponsorship. At least in that much, the wiki is very, very
I think it's more than pragmatic. It's required. It's a matter of trust:
you want the community to trust you and put you in a position where a
great many Arch users trust you by default, and part of that is that if
someone had objections in the past to your being on the team, then you
should at least let your sponsors know the position you are in, which
you are asking them to stake their reputation on. They will want to have
the opportunity to evaluate and hopefully decide that those reasons no
longer apply (or they disagree with the other prospective sponsor's
reasoning, which is also okay, because we are allowed to have
differences of opinion).
Frankly, even if it wasn't an official rule of the application process,
I would still consider it to be common courtesy.
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 1601 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general