Re: [aur-general] TU removal: Ray Rashif

[Ray Rashif via aur-general]

Sorry folks, I should have probably sent in a resignation for this. I
have also made unfulfilled promises as a developer and never sent in
an inactivity declaration in the hopes of getting back to Arch/Linux
once I have a new computer. As funny as it sounds my undeclared
inactivity is as long as this current machine ~3-4 years and a
purchase has been pending since last year but keeps getting
down-prioritized due to $$ requirements elsewhere in RL.

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 22:30, David Runge  wrote:
>
> On 2019-10-11 14:44:27 (+0200), David Runge wrote:
> > In accordance to the bylaws a vote has now been started:
> > https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=120
>
> The results are in:
>
> Yes: 36
> No: 7
> Abstain: 6
> Total: 49
> Participation: 87.50%
>
> The quorum of 66% has been reached with a larger number of "Yes", than
> "No" votes.
>
> This means Ray Rashif is no longer a Trusted User.
>
> On behalf of the team I would like to thank Ray for his dedication
> towards the community and distribution over the years.
>
> I hope that his time permits further involvement in the future. :)
>
> Bests,
> David
>
> --
> https://sleepmap.de



-- 
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: David Runge

[Ray Rashif via aur-general]

On 24 October 2017 at 22:54, Giancarlo Razzolini
 wrote:
> Em outubro 24, 2017 14:43 Rashif Ray Rahman escreveu:
>>
>> On 18 October 2017 at 18:40, Rashif Ray Rahman 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The discussion begins now and will last until 23 October, after which
>>> the voting period will begin on 24 October. Good luck David!
>>
>>
>> The formal discussion period is over, please cast your votes! The
>> voting period will last until 31 October.
>>
>> I do have one thing to say to David: please do think about the time
>> commitment associated with this. If you think that you won't be able
>> to commit much starting out, then it will be quite sad moving forward.
>>
>> Otherwise, I say again that David's proposal has followed standard
>> procedure, including a holistic review by myself the sponsor. Some
>> issues were raised based on automated tool reports, which I think
>> David will be able to resolve.
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>
> The link to the vote for the lazy: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=97

Results are in:

Yes   No  Abstain  Total   Participation
  25 68  39   82.98%

Congratulations, David, you are now an Arch Linux Trusted User!

What's more:

- I have updated your account on AUR;
- I see you have two usernames on our bugtracker, let us know which
username to upgrade.

Enjoy!


-- 
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

Re: [aur-general] TU Application: David Runge

[Ray Rashif via aur-general]

On 25 October 2017 at 06:12, Eli Schwartz  wrote:
> On 10/24/2017 12:43 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
>> Some issues were raised based on automated tool reports, which I
>> think David will be able to resolve.
>
> Excuse me? I am hardly an "automated tool report". :p You seem to have
> derived that conclusion out of thin air.

Ahh, crap. Before I get to that, automated tool or not, I forgot to thank you
for providing your feedback for David.

Now, about that automated tool thing: I did a search for 'xxarhtna' in my
archives and got some lines indicating an execution of a script. So,
it was not really out of thin air, but most likely my misinterpration.
It's likely my absence from IRC that's causing this faux pas.

But again, even if it were an automated tool report, it would have been
"issues based on automated tool reports", which is feedback nevertheless.
And for that one must be thanked.

> The reason I never got around to remarking on his packages until very
> nearly the last day of the discussion period was not just because I was
> expecting anthraxx to do so first -- I also spent no little time reading
> every single PKGBUILD of his in the AUR, and cloning the sources for
> perusal for several of them too.

No, of course, it's not wrong to not be able to commit to anything here.
If you choose to provide feedback that means you went out of your way.
And in this case you definitely went out of your way to support the
applicant's sponsor in raising concerns he did not, which is healthy.

> I've seen a lot of PKGBUILDs, and many/most of the simple mistakes or
> general style failures that people tend to make; I have a list of things
> to raise red flags over. But that still doesn't mean I can review a
> PKGBUILD without even looking at it! Maybe one day...

Again, that comment of mine was not really meant to say nobody did
anything. I really just wanted to say "issues were raised" or "feedback
was given". Me being a wordy person, sometimes extra words get added for free!

But yes, if there are indeed red flags that make the applicant
look totally incapable or untrustworthy, we should know, and
raise hell ourselves.


--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1