Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
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 suggestion. > > By your logic, there is no situation where the first part of the > condition applies but the second part (after the "OR") does not. So we > could as well remove the part before the "OR" -- and, if that were the > case, we would have removed the statement before the amendment of the > bylaws. > > If what I am saying is not true, there might be a misunderstanding: in > this case, please describe a situation where only the part before the > "OR" applies but the part after the "OR" does not. Well, strictly speaking in the event that there have been no prospective votes in more than two months, but the TU in question did vote for the votes from, say, three and four months ago but then dropped off the face of the community for the last two months, they would qualify for special removal under the part before the OR, but not the part after the OR. I think that having to contrive that circumstance indicates that it is, in fact, contrived and going against the intent. > In fact, even if you really want to be pedantic and take everything in > the bylaws literally, the first condition before the "OR" applies if a > Trusted User does nothing but vote: in today's terminology, the "AUR" is > the "Arch User Repository" (the collection of packages uploaded and > maintained by users) and the web interface is called "aurweb", see [1]. > So, while voting is a TU action performed in aurweb, it is clearly not > "any action that required TU privileges on the AUR" because the AUR > (package collection) is not touched. Indeed! I tried to make this evident in my initial proposal to this thread. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
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 part of the condition applies but the second part (after the "OR") does not. So we could as well remove the part before the "OR" -- and, if that were the case, we would have removed the statement before the amendment of the bylaws. If what I am saying is not true, there might be a misunderstanding: in this case, please describe a situation where only the part before the "OR" applies but the part after the "OR" does not. > And again, the intention of the current bylaws was not to disregard voting as > an activity. The first part was to speed up the process for TUs who show no > visible online activity (i.e. TUs who have abandoned Arch completely, for > whatever reason), and the second part was to remove those who prevent the > establishment of quorum. A TU who votes is clearly still logging in to his or > her account and not preventing quorum. So yeah, a TU who does nothing but vote > for over a year should be removed, but by a regular removal process, which the > bylaws already handle. Makes no sense. See above. We would not have listed all the details of what TU inactivity means if inactivity always implies the part after the "OR". > > Btw, we discussed this together over 4 years ago and we were in agreement then > about both the intention and the formulation. Here's a message in which you > clearly agreed with this intention: > > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-August/024783.html I did agree that inactivity should be a sufficient condition for special removal. I did never agree that inactivity requires not voting. In that email, I even explained that I understand "work on the AUR" as "uploading, updating and deleting packages". In fact, even if you really want to be pedantic and take everything in the bylaws literally, the first condition before the "OR" applies if a Trusted User does nothing but vote: in today's terminology, the "AUR" is the "Arch User Repository" (the collection of packages uploaded and maintained by users) and the web interface is called "aurweb", see [1]. So, while voting is a TU action performed in aurweb, it is clearly not "any action that required TU privileges on the AUR" because the AUR (package collection) is not touched. Regards, Lukas [1] https://git.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/plain/README
Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
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 who aren't "doing enough" according to the majority of other TUs. The only difference from the special removal process is a few more days and a higher quorum. The current bylaws are explicit and fine as they are. There is no need to change them. A TU who still shows signs of recent online activity should be given the full discussion period of a regular removal process to offer an explanation or resignation. After all, all TUs have contributed to this community and were recruited due to qualities that we recognized in them at the time of their application. A few extra days to hear their them out before kicking them out is a costless courtesy. Unless they are preventing quorum from being established, there is absolutely no harm nor pressing need to speed up the process. Just to be clear, I support the proposed removals given the cited inactivity, and I agree that doing nothing other than vote for over a year is not the intended mission of a TU. The silence from both during the discussion period is also strange given that they still log in to vote (vote timers?). And again, the intention of the current bylaws was not to disregard voting as an activity. The first part was to speed up the process for TUs who show no visible online activity (i.e. TUs who have abandoned Arch completely, for whatever reason), and the second part was to remove those who prevent the establishment of quorum. A TU who votes is clearly still logging in to his or her account and not preventing quorum. So yeah, a TU who does nothing but vote for over a year should be removed, but by a regular removal process, which the bylaws already handle. Btw, we discussed this together over 4 years ago and we were in agreement then about both the intention and the formulation. Here's a message in which you clearly agreed with this intention: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-August/024783.html You later approved my patch. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps
Lukas Fleischer via aur-general wrote:
>I find it ridiculous to call Trusted Users active ("in some sense") if
>all they do is vote. The actual job of a Trusted User is to maintain the
>AUR and the [community] repository. Imagine a world where all Trusted
>Users would do nothing but add/remove new Trusted Users; neither the AUR
>nor [community] are touched by anyone. Would you call such a group of
>Trusted Users active? I doubt so.
And that is why the regular removal process exists.
Special removal process: quickly remove a TU who has disappeared or impeded the
mission of other TUS.
Regular removal process: remove TUs that are not doing their job as other TUs
see fit.
Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU
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 section was to provide a way to remove TUs who had simply > > disappeared. This is as it should be. There is no mandated TU quota for > > package actions. > > > The intent of the second section, after the "OR", is to ensure that TUs who > > repeatedly disregard votes and possibly prevent quorum from being > > established > > can be removed. > > The special removal procedure was only added to handle special cases where the > TU has clearly abandoned Arch altogether (no detectable activity in the last > two months) or the TU has simply ignored votes and thus jeopardized quorum, > again over a period of two months or more. > > The normal procedure should be used to remove a TU who has not impeded other > TUs in their mission and who has been active within the last two months, which > gives them time to offer an explanation or a resignation. So you suggest to remove the first part of the condition (before the "OR") altogether?
Re: [aur-general] Special Removal of an Inactive TU: speps
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 04:07:06, Xyne wrote:
> Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>
> >Yes, it is a bit ambiguous. The discussion in #archlinux-tu concluded that
> >the
> >voting being an the AUR was just happenstance and intent of the section was
> >that voting not be included in point 2. With many/most of the most active TUs
> >participating or present for that discussion, I would conclude that the
> >general
> >understanding of this section was followed in this case and the motions have
> >passed.
>
> I disagree. 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 section was to provide a way to remove TUs who had simply
> disappeared. This is as it should be. There is no mandated TU quota for
> package
> actions.
I find it ridiculous to call Trusted Users active ("in some sense") if
all they do is vote. The actual job of a Trusted User is to maintain the
AUR and the [community] repository. Imagine a world where all Trusted
Users would do nothing but add/remove new Trusted Users; neither the AUR
nor [community] are touched by anyone. Would you call such a group of
Trusted Users active? I doubt so.
Also, as I already mentioned in another reply, the intent of the current
statement in the bylaws is quite clear: voting should not be considered
as some sort of activity in the first section before the "OR". If you
count voting as activity, the condition "not active OR not voting" for
special removal makes no sense: "voting" implies "active", so "not
active" implies "not voting" and the statement "not active OR not
voting" is equivalent to "not voting". This means that the whole section
before the "OR" is unnecessary. I do not think we would have voted for
an amendment of the bylaws adding unnecessary junk.
I really hope we will not start reading and writing our bylaws like
pedantic lawyers, where every single formulation has to be chosen very
carefully. Voting is just a tiny part of the things we do, our main
focus should be on improving Arch Linux as a distribution.
Regards,
Lukas
