On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the >> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" >> >> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwa...@archlinux.org> >> --- >> >> Handy link to context and surrounding discussion: >> >> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-January/033789.html >> >> The current wording of the bylaws indicates that there are two ways for >> a TU to qualify for special removal due to inactivity: >> >> 1) Do not participate in voting, thereby potentially blockading a quorum. >> >> 2) Do not participate in general TU'ish activities like maintaining >> [community], administrating the AUR and the packagers and users therein, >> being representative of TUs in general on this mailing list by being >> awesome and stuff, i.e. posting (hopefully useful information that helps >> AUR users), and... um... voting? >> >> Point #2 calls out "performed any action that required TU privileges on >> the AUR", but does the tu voting interface on aurweb count as that or >> not? Moreover, do we *want* it to count? It seems to be somewhat >> defeating the purpose of the process, i.e. as long as a TU doesn't >> actually block quorum during a vote, they can remain while not actually >> performing any of the inherent functions of a TU. >> >> Now, I would argue that under a common sense interpretation the original >> intent of the bylaws was almost certainly that voting does not count as >> a "TU privilege", since a TU is someone who has the "privilege" to >> administrate AUR packages and users in order to keep good order, and >> select good packages to upload to [community]. >> >> But bylaws exist in order to prevent people from having different >> interpretations of common sense. So this should be clarified no matter >> what. > > Thus far, we've (I think) only seen people argue that: > > 1) this is what the bylaws really mean, let us clarify it for the sake > of less confusion some other day, > > 2) The bylaws do not mean this and should not do this. > > > Can I assume that means there is no one who feels this *should* be true, > but currently *isn't*? > > ... > > Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for > grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
The discussion period is over, time to vote! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=102 -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature