Ray Rashif wrote: > On 10 November 2010 17:15, Xyne <x...@archlinux.ca> wrote: > > I also want to address something else. I am disappointed that 5 TUs voted no > > without anyone voicing any concerns during the discussion period. To abstain > > from a vote indicates that you do not have an opinion one way or the other, > > but > > to vote no is to indicate that you have a reason to believe that the > > application > > should be rejected. The discussion period is for discussing exactly such > > things. It gives the applicant a chance to address any issues and it enables > > others to consider what they might not have considered before. > > > > If you have a concern that no one else has expressed during a discussion > > period > > then it is your duty as a TU and an active participant in the discussion to > > bring it up. Please do so in the future. > > > > I also want to say that I do not want anyone to bring up there reasons now. > > The > > time for that is past and there would be nothing to be gained from it, and > > it > > might lead to unnecessary tensions. > > There is no problem with that. The bylaws do not dictate against > silence. This is why: > > It was brought to our attention at least on one prior occasion. The > problem only arises when an application fails, and everyone keeps > quiet. That is simply not very nice, though they have the technical > right to do so. > > A TU may or may not participate in the discussion depending on whether > she has anything significant to add, and if she decides not and > chooses to vote against the applicant, may do so without voicing an > opinion. If this contributes to a failed application, then the ethical > thing to do is to state her reasons for the negative vote. Hell, we > wouldn't even know if one or more TUs just played around with the > buttons!
I still see this as an issue. We're not voting on pizza toppings here. We're granting people access to the [community] repo which is trusted by most Arch users. The TUs are entrusted with maintaining that repo and its standards. If one person had voice a concern with an application and then 5 others silently agreed by voting no, then I see no problem with that. My issue with this is that not a single person said anything. I would hope that a TU would have at least a decent reason to vote no instead of abstain, and I would hope that TUs do more than just pick random buttons when voting. I think my difficulty is in understanding how someone can feel that something merits a rejection yet not a discussion, i.e. "this is clearly an issue for me that makes me think this person won't be a TU, but I see no reason to make the other TUs aware of it... I'll just leave it to luck". The only thing that I can think of is that the distinction between "abstain" and "no" isn't clear. In a way they make no difference as only yes votes and the total number of votes decide the outcome, but there is still a big difference on a personal level between the two, with all the aforementioned implications. Meh, this isn't that big of an issue and it's definitely not a by-law issue. As I wrote before, I'm simply disappointed by this behavior.