[aur-general] TU membership application

Levente Polyak anthraxx at archlinux.org
Wed Sep 4 17:09:06 UTC 2019

On September 4, 2019 4:37:42 PM GMT+02:00, Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general <aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
>Em setembro 4, 2019 9:54 Alexander Rødseth via aur-general escreveu:
>> I did agree to sponsor the TU application of Jean Lucas, provided he
>> another sponsor, but was not aware that he had sent his application
>> any mentoring on my part.
>Well, I think it should be the other way around, you first mentor
>someone and look
>with them into their packages and then decided about sponsorship.
>> I am not in favor of how the TU application process turned out, nor
>> idea of moving proprietary software packages to [community], but I'll
>> by my word and sponsor him if there is another sponsor.
>Sergej already confirmed sponsorship. But it seems neither of you
>actually mentored
>the applicant.
>> In general, we need more TUs and Devs and I think we should have a
>> that feels less judgemental on the applicants (ref. the application
>> Drew DeVault that sadly did not join us as a TU).
>While I agree that we should have a more on point discussion with less
>regarding other stuff, I don't think that simply foregoing the
>discussion period is
>the way to go.
>> If someone dislikes a TU application, it's easy to vote "no" in the
>> that follows.
>That's not how this should be faced. Ideally all the applications
>should have two
>sponsors that are actively mentoring the applicant and are vested into
>their success.
>If we had that, applications would be voted "yes".
>ps: I'm not making any judgment on the applicant here. I've talked with
>him privately
>regarding this application process. While he failed to disclose that he
>had asked another
>TU before, I don't think it was in bad faith.
>Giancarlo Razzolini

I agree with grazzolini,
sponsors pretty much agreed themselves that
there was zero mentoring happening plus
xyproto obviously is even surprised so many
proprietary blobs are about to be added.

Not judging here by any means about the
applicant himself, but I consider the current
state as void as we frankly did not go through
long discussions and bylaw changes to
implement two sponsors if at the end it doesn't
provide more value than having a bigger number
and "having nothing against because someone
wants a package in the repo" . 

I'm happy to cast votes after the sponsors did
what sponsors shall do and take care of their
applicant - obviously there is much room for
discussing intends etc with sponsors. 

More information about the aur-general mailing list