On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:37:42PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 6/11/18 8:15 pm, Bruno Pagani wrote: > > Le 06/11/2018 à 11:12, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public a écrit : > >> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 08:09:03PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > >>> On 6/11/18 7:54 pm, Christian Rebischke via arch-dev-public wrote: > >>>> Hello everybody, > >>>> > >>>> First of all, the following mail has nothing to do with the last two TU > >>>> applications, it's a general view on the current TU application process. > >>>> > >>>> I would like to propose a new process for TU applications due to several > >>>> reasons: > >>>> > >>> Read the TU bylaws. It has specific instructions of where proposals > >>> must be posted (hint: not here...). > >>> > >>> A > >> Hi Allan, > >> > >> This mail wasn't meant as proposal. It's just a general discussion about > >> this topic and people said in the TU IRC channel yesterday, that > >> arch-dev-public would be the > >> right mailinglist for such discussion. > >> > >> chris > > Specifically, we are also interested in the input of devs, not just TUs. > > Strange, given TUs are set-up to be an independently governed group from > developers... But because you asked my opinion, I think a TU council is > a really, really, really bad idea. No need to set some TUs above > others. We have never had a formal hierarchy in the developers (apart > from our glorious leader), and are instead run by those who step up to > lead what needs done. I believe that this is what makes Arch work, and > governance would be detrimental to the distribution as a whole. > > Personally, I'd get rid of all quorum for electing a TU, and make > inactive TUs be measured purely on the basis of package updating. Most > TU application discussions are inane beyond the customary package > review. And when someone applies and their packages are very bad, their > sponsor should be held in shame. > > Finally, I don't want to hear what the minions are up to! Get back to > your own mailing list. :) > > A
Ok, but nevertheless thanks for your opinion. I will move this to aur-general now. chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
