Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
---
This is not an amendment to the bylaws themselves, and as such does not
require any sort of vote. But I think this is rather useful to have, as
there is currently not a case of perfect clarity for the administrivium
involved in processing updates. As development of
The discussion period is over,
lets give the reviewers and applicants some more time :]
https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=109
cheers,
Levente
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I quite definitively should not send patches when being incredibly
tired, of cause the subject should be "14 days" matching what the body
actually describes and changes.
I'm sorry >.>
Levente
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Just adding this signed mail to authenticate i indeed proposed this
change :)
cheers,
Levente
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
From: anthraxx
Signed-off-by: Levente Polyak
---
The discussion period for the addition of a new TU is too short.
After having some chats on this topic with multiple TUs it seemed like
a general consensus to extended the dicussion period to 14 days, hence
this proposal.
5 days are rarely enoug
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
>>
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
>> ---
>>
>> Handy link to context and surrounding di
On 01/23/2018 02:16 PM, Balló György via aur-general wrote:
>> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for
>> grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
>
> Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account
> or do anything other than resolving p
> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for
> grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account
or do anything other than resolving package requests (which is tracked
on aur-requests mailing list)? Cur
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
> ---
>
> Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
>
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermai
On 01/21/2018 04:19 PM, Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:40:43, Xyne wrote:
>> On 2018-01-21 10:04 +0100
>> Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
>>
>>> So you suggest to remove the first part of the condition (before the
>>> "OR") altogether?
>>
>> I made no such
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 21:40:43, Xyne wrote:
> On 2018-01-21 10:04 +0100
> Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
>
> >So you suggest to remove the first part of the condition (before the
> >"OR") altogether?
>
> I made no such suggestion.
By your logic, there is no situation where the first par
On 2018-01-21 10:04 +0100
Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
>So you suggest to remove the first part of the condition (before the
>"OR") altogether?
I made no such suggestion.
With the current bylaws, any 2 TUs can start a regular removal process for any
reason. This suffices to remove TUs
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 04:24:49, Xyne wrote:
> > The intent of the first sectionm before the "OR", is to measure any sort of
> > activity. Updating a package, voting or posting a comment shows that the TU
> > is still logging in to the AUR and thus active in some sense. The point of
> > the first s
On 2018-01-19 09:16 +0100
Lukas Jirkovsky via aur-general wrote:
>My common sense tells me that activity that helps Arch Linux to
>prosper should be considered – be it packaging, triaging AUR requests
>etc.
>
>From that point of view, it makes sense to not count voting as TU
>activity, thereby blo
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> +2. performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR, for example
> +resolving package requests, modifying user accounts, or force pushing to a
> +package base, but NOT including participation in a voting p
On 19 January 2018 at 00:18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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
> ---
>
> Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
>
> https://lists.arc
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
---
Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-January/033789.html
The current wording of
The proposed changes have been accepted. Final tally:
yes: 27
no: 0
abstain: 4
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:45:50PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:07:47PM +, Xyne wrote:
> > On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200
> > Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> >
> > >+SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5
> > >days,
> > >+a quorum of 75%, a
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:07:47PM +, Xyne wrote:
> On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200
> Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>
> >+SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5
> >days,
> >+a quorum of 75%, and a voting period of 7 days.
>
>
> Use the same formulation as the "Removal
On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>+SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5
>days,
>+a quorum of 75%, and a voting period of 7 days.
Use the same formulation as the "Removal of a TU" section:
>Following the motion, standard voting procedure comme
The quorum section does not mention when the number of TUs is recorded.
Add a note that this is done at the beginning of the voting period. This
makes it easy to implement automated quorum calculation in the AUR.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer
---
tu-bylaws.txt | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 inserti
* Mention the tu-bylaws.git repository.
* Mention Git-formatted patches and subject keywords.
* Promote `git send-email`.
* Add note on submitting several patches at once.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer
---
tu-bylaws.txt | 23 +++
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions
Ok, sending this before the voting period for Xyne's proposal is over
since it is already clear that it will be accepted. More than 65% of all
TUs voted "yes" and there are zero "no" votes so far :)
The first patch is a follow-up to Xyne's proposal and is something he
simply forgot when writing th
On 2013-08-16 11:00 +0200
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +, Xyne wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes:
>> https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70
>
>I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just
>noticed tha
On 16.08.2013 11:00, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> Also, I just wondered whether it is okay to accept a proposal before the
> voting period ends? Currently, there are 19 yes votes, 37 TUs and there
> is no way the number of TUs can increase until the end of the proposal.
No, people should be allowed to
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +, Xyne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes:
> https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70
I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just
noticed that your patch doesn't seem to change the sentence mentionin
Hi,
The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes:
https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70
Regards,
Xyne
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:29:42AM +, Xyne wrote:
> [...]
> Patch follows:
I put that patch on a separate branch (proposal-70) in the official TU
bylaws repository [1], so that it is easier for people to extract the
actual commit and review the changes in the way they prefer.
I think it is a
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
>I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I
>have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this
>into two commits, one containing the little changes like referring to
>trusted users as TUs or explicitly mentioning the aur-general a
On 9 August 2013 13:29, Xyne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous
> thread:
I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I
have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this
into two commits, one co
On 11 August 2013 18:29, Xyne wrote:
> The current by-laws try to automate a process that requires human discretion.
> This version retains automation for extreme cases and relies on human
> discretion for the rest.
Alright, this justifies those changes. Good to go on the rest, AFAICS.
--
GPG/P
Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne wrote:
>> ...
>> * remove distinction between "active" and "inactive" TUs
>
>So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote
>and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see
>these changes cover disa
On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne wrote:
> ...
> * remove distinction between "active" and "inactive" TUs
So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote
and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see
these changes cover disappearing TUs, but not non-partici
On 08/10/2013 09:15 AM, Xyne wrote:
> In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting
> moderation.
This list is not activly moderated afaik. I'm just letting through your
messages whenever you post about them so this discussion can go on. I'm
not going to do any more moderati
Hi,
Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous
thread:
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-August/024745.html
I hope this is in the correct format. I haven't used git send-email because I
still haven't configured it and didn't want to ris
Xyne wrote:
>done
In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting moderation.
I had attached the resulting docs for those who like to read plaintext. My
system reported them as under 40k so I thought it would go through, but the
encoding bumped it up to 42k. Sorry for the dela
On 2013-08-09 10:26 +0200
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>+1 from me. I think you should start a new proposal. Please send this as
>an inline patch, adding "[tu-bylaws]" to the subject line -- like I did.
>People usually do not want to re-read the whole bylaws and exporting the
>attached file just to crea
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:16:56PM +, Xyne wrote:
> Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> >Ok. The first idea is simple to implement: When a new proposal (the
> >proposal type doesn't really matter) is created, generate a list of
> >current TUs and save it. If an applicant/TU is added to the proposal,
> >th
Xyne wrote:
>Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>
>>> The clause should probably also specify that removal votes take precedence
>>> over
>>> any other pending votes except removal votes.
>>
>>What does this mean in practice? :)
>
>Let's say that the discussion period for a TU application begins and the vote
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>+1. However, I would like to retain the repeated quorum offense
>condition. If there are a couple of TUs that work on the AUR (as in
>uploading, updating and deleting packages) and do not participate in
>SVPs, they might block decisions. I think that it is important to make
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:50:36PM +, Xyne wrote:
> [...]
> The distinction between "active" and "inactive" TUs is meaningless and should
> be removed from the bylaws, including the definition of quorum. Quorum will
> therefore be some fixed percent of all TUs. As stated in this thread, up to 1
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>The question we have to answer is : How many TU are necessary to have
>a motion pass.
>Set the quorum to this value and _stop_ cheating by :
>- creating more valid voters than others (the active)
>- find ways to ignore the quorum is not reach (so the vote has no meanin
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fl
On 7 August 2013 06:06, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> The total number of TUs isn't fixed. It changes from time to time and it
> might change during a SVP. I agree that it is a rare case but why not
> find a proper way to handle that while we're talking about it...
OK, I was just pointing out what loo
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM
On 7 August 2013 04:54, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for
> some bylaw amendment history:
>
> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/000127.html
> https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-Decem
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> >> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleische
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> >> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> >
> > Any other opinions?
> Yes, we should
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>
> Any other opinions?
Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.
This will simplify computation and restore th
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> > Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
> > the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
>
> What happens when a TU b
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
> the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
What happens when a TU becomes inactive after casting a vote? Would
her vote be invalidated? If so, n
Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
This is a more accurate measure since everyone who is active at some
point in time during the voting period is (technically) able to vote.
Signed-off-by:
Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer
---
Makefile | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index e0dcb17..17f28f1 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ all: tu-bylaws.html
clean:
rm tu-bylaws.html
-.PHONY: all
+.PHONY: all clean
-
Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer
---
.gitignore | 1 +
Makefile | 9 +
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 .gitignore
create mode 100644 Makefile
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 000..2d19fc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1
56 matches
Mail list logo
