[aur-general] [PATCH][tu-bylaws]: raise threshold of sponsors to two

[Andrew Crerar]

On 1/8/19 4:31 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
>> Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
>>> - Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs
>>> - Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
>>
>> I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are
>> going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors? 
> 
> This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a
> preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any
> PKGBUILDS during the discussion period.
> 
>> Also, if we are heading
>> this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring
>> to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
> 
> This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in
> the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation.
> 
> What're everyone's thoughts on this?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Santiago.
> 

I don't think the bylaws should *explicitly* state or require two additional,
non-sponsoring TU's to conduct reviews. I can think of a number of downsides
with making that a requirement with possibly one upside.

However, I do think it should be a well-known and documented (i.e. in the wiki)
best-practice that during the review process, there's two or more non-sponsoring
TU's reviewing the applicant's packages. Informal, but effective.

Regards,

Andrew

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20190108/3138c5f9/attachment-0001.asc>