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

[Brett Cornwall]

I apologize for contributing to this sturm und drang.



On 2019-01-08 12:33, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
>Rules without a process to ensure they actually achieve a useful result
>don't do the thing they are intended to do. I guess if people are
>dissatisfied with the application process, then a moratorium might be
>considered a valid alternative, but I think most will agree it is not a
>*good* alternative.
>
>Historically, reviews happen by a maximum of one person, and it's
>almost always either me or Levente. And I'm no longer interested in the
>pressure. Now we're getting recent cases where no one reviews at all,
>or someone does but only on the last day of the discussion period.
>
>Bottom line is that perceptions of inefficiencies in the application
>process can only be solved by changing the people doing the voting.

I agree. I will help share the load and hope the wider TU community 
will join.

>The original sponsors should have done this and more in the first place.
>I don't want to vote for a candidate simply because I cannot find any
>compelling objections -- I want to vote for a candidate because s/he and
>sponsor(s) gave me a passionate reason to believe in them.

I would like to highlight dvzrv for being very effective - well before 
my application he was helping improve my PKGBUILDs, during my 
application he helped me prep, and even after my acceptance he has 
continued to give great feedback.