On 01/24/2018 11:18 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > 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
The results are in! Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation 26 9 4 39 Yes 81.25% Seems like overall people thought this was a reasonable interpretation. Rather than holding *another* round of votes to decide whether the previous voting results (for #100 and #101) should be upheld two weeks later, I think it is safe to declare that the previous proposals were indeed valid. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature