Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote: From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the sheeple just followed the old and grumpy man, at least that is public appearance of this whole thing. As been stated already there have been some TU's I have seen fly through that do not even appear as active as greysky is as a non TU. To me and maybe I just love a good story, but there seems more behind the denial than was publicly discussed. There's another way of interpreting this--and I'm not saying it's right, either morally or factually. I'm just throwing it out as a possibility. One way of group decision-making is by majority vote. Another is by super-majority, meaning that the proportion needed to approve is higher than 50%. Finally, there is consensus, in which everyone must agree--or at least acquiesce. As I read this, it sounds like the written rules might call for a majority vote, but that an unwritten rule calls for consensus. It's perfectly legitimate to organize based on a consensus requirement. But if that's the case, my thought is that it should be stated as such, and time ought to be allocated to allow for extended consensus-building (which can be an arduous process). I don't know what voting mechanism is used. I was guessing--without looking--that trusted users were indicating their votes by email, hardly an anonymous process. If that's the case, then asking the reason for a particular vote may seem legitimate. If, however, the votes are anonymous, asking reasons can actually serve to compromise that anonymity, since voters may unwittingly or unwillingly compromise themselves with an open-ended response. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRTrCbAAoJELJhbl/uPb4SRaAQALicnDel2CbuikOfifs0OcFs Dh/76+oVMhGxmsWkzWk0Te0AjqtaOP5ETr8VTK3/OXDGvLbYMuhwTsugFdHpxukn Rsd1Z3ohf+ErSug/dhaYx6VGx0fTOeU46SRViDryu/Q7uF954OalQvdcWWF5T8gY hNeFmasbe0d1Ja81Xy5C5zxNQ2CyiO//M7wHjWQukEPEmqFbNFEBRcN6J5rNFlND NffyqgkEEXZNXCPtjxWNXzsEFtDOLy5bsO+bO1SLx87ElOX4NiaVGX6CeTRzOy5r sp4V269UIlud0B0k4dY9kxBjrDw5zw2mrjY7ABZZ82N6xA94F0QTFXQqg+F5sTbm AAfvsGlK13ZmW5fQ9HDPGeUXlkHrLpY+nu5YUJ4oJYt5U52bpZd7mhum7hJuhUau hvDjEbtavB19VA5DzCKRkPrZRVzceiErldGW/XsfQ782MPNzG2aUgNT9hTn7nBHB f+MbZmYmCdD4ifAyVJamKBvTbTk4z9F5rhCRGzqdDKdooIPccuepK9q8mDx7ZMfE RXNteZVCeYrgaGZtnuY8HKgsUSc5uoLCIceSH7qoBv6hSIYrR2eDlShj5k1q+bfb itsIaYZcvT8nXTvZtdZky9IQLpUtsN5PY8wV69cNIupkugB1JAzh/8SmV0wzvFUW VD5OrWqSGjLGDTwydCgR =els0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Don deJuan wrote: There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result. Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have made up their minds. Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No one did. David Benfell wrote: I don't know what voting mechanism is used. I was guessing--without looking--that trusted users were indicating their votes by email, hardly an anonymous process. If that's the case, then asking the reason for a particular vote may seem legitimate. If, however, the votes are anonymous, asking reasons can actually serve to compromise that anonymity, since voters may unwittingly or unwillingly compromise themselves with an open-ended response. The voting process is anonymous via a dedicated AUR voting interface. We can see who voted when the vote ends but not how. We can however see a running tally throughout the voting period. Yes, the discussion period does remove some anonymity from the vote, but there should be some accountability. This isn't the same thing as voting for a political party where the choice is often arbitrarily based on a myriad of subjective personal values that sometimes defy logic. The vote should be focused on an objective evaluation of the candidate and it should be possible to come to some general consensus through discussion. And as I said before, if there is an objection then I consider it an obligation to state it because by not doing so others may remain unaware of a real issue and unknowing vote for an inappropriate candidate. I think I have said all that I have to say on this issue. I remain disappointed by how this played out and I am not alone. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is very wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself than risk offending the candidate by expressing it then either the objection itself is without merit or the TU is more concerned about his own popularity than the quality of the distribution. I completely agree with you. But as we have just seen, it doesn't always work like that. In such case, a black box which can tell you some of the reasons why people voted No is an improvement over knowing absolutely nothing.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data. To my supporters, I'd like to reiterate a salient point from what I posted yesterday[2]: functionally, nothing will change. I will continue to maintain my repo, I will continue to maintain my PKGBUILDs in the AUR, and people will continue to use my stuff despite Dave's objections. Here are some other data for consideration, as of 24-Mar-2013: *Profile-sync-daemon is installed by just under 5 % of Arch users running pkgstats[3]. *Profile-sync-daemon v5.31-1 has been downloaded by just under 1,400 Debian/Mint/Ubuntu users[4]. *Profile-sync-daemon will, at some point, be included in the Fedora repos[5]. *Profile-sync-daemon has ebuilds maintained by developers for both Gentoo and Exherbo[6]. Thanks again to my supporters. 1. https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022737.html 2. https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-March/022738.html 3. https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics 4. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ppastats ; run the script via `ppastats --release quantal --arch i386 graysky utils` 5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=912878 6. https://github.com/graysky2/profile-sync-daemon
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Don deJuan wrote: There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result. Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have made up their minds. Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No one did. You explain again your former opinion. It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone. It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that you convince me or others readers. I think I have said all that I have to say on this issue. I remain disappointed by how this played out and I am not alone. 12 TU are disappointed. 14 not. This is a result of a tight vote. Please, don't says the whole system is crap because graysky was not elected. We can vote no, otherwise we no longer vote. -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Sébastien Luttringer wrote: Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No one did. You explain again your former opinion. It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone. It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that you convince me or others readers. I think we have different definitions of discussion. I would also say that if you have no arguments to support an opinion then it is baseless and should be re-examined.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Sébastien Luttringer wrote: Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No one did. You explain again your former opinion. It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone. It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that you convince me or others readers. I think we have different definitions of discussion. I would also say that if you have no arguments to support an opinion then it is baseless and should be re-examined. Well, whatever the case, we know that: 1. Sébastien (seblu?) is the best example of a TU who was rejected at one time 2. Dave (falconindy) is _not_ to blame (he did the right thing by being transparent) 3. Those who silently thought Dave must be right need a change of attitude The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a matter of public safety). Voting systems should eliminate bias, and in this case it did not favour any one particular outcome (mixed opinions), so it in fact worked pretty well. If an opinion was influential, then so be it. You can't disregard the result just because you did not expect it (I didn't either). However, all these indicate that grasky is good to go for the next round (after three months), so let us all not worry and continue what we were doing. I'd personally like him to reapply when that time comes. Til next time, then ;) -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote: Sébastien Luttringer wrote: Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the issues and reconsider them in the light of the evolving conversation. It gives the candidate the chance to respond and adapt as well. If anyone felt that my reply to Dave failed to address the issues then they should have stated why. No one did. You explain again your former opinion. It's not because you are the last one to answer that you convince everyone. It's not because I will not give arguments to refute what you say that you convince me or others readers. I think we have different definitions of discussion. I would also say that if you have no arguments to support an opinion then it is baseless and should be re-examined. If everyone who voted No was required to post, this list would be cluttered with messages that basically say I still agree with Dave. Dave is one of the most active Arch users and he is known for being very direct. Even though I voted Yes, getting rejected by Dave and then immediately sending a TU application that leaves out this details seems like trying to pull a fast one. The number of No votes does not surprise me because this point was adequately discussed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a matter of public safety). Trusting someone with the ability to push binary packages out to every Arch user seems like something that should have a pretty high bar. It's not just trust that they won't do anything malicious, it's trust that they'll look after their key and won't allow a situation where someone else would have access. They need to be able to work with the rest of the team and take responsibility for any mistakes they make.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope you give me some creed. I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be borderline libel. I have, throughout my career, had positions of trust with my government backed by sundry clearances. At present, I am in the credit card processing business, which has its only level of trust. I have watched Graysky for months. I have been an practicing engineer for more than 25 years, and have no reason to question his ability; If you do, so be it. His technical ability notwithstanding, I find your calling his trustworthiness in to question to be inappropriate and suspect it to be a red herring. I assert you should provide evidence for your lack of trust in him, or you should apologize publicly.. Eric Waller On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a matter of public safety). Trusting someone with the ability to push binary packages out to every Arch user seems like something that should have a pretty high bar. It's not just trust that they won't do anything malicious, it's trust that they'll look after their key and won't allow a situation where someone else would have access. They need to be able to work with the rest of the team and take responsibility for any mistakes they make.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller ewwal...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope you give me some creed. I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be borderline libel. I have, throughout my career, had positions of trust with my government backed by sundry clearances. At present, I am in the credit card processing business, which has its only level of trust. I have watched Graysky for months. I have been an practicing engineer for more than 25 years, and have no reason to question his ability; If you do, so be it. His technical ability notwithstanding, I find your calling his trustworthiness in to question to be inappropriate and suspect it to be a red herring. I assert you should provide evidence for your lack of trust in him, or you should apologize publicly.. Eric Waller On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Micay danielmi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a matter of public safety). Trusting someone with the ability to push binary packages out to every Arch user seems like something that should have a pretty high bar. It's not just trust that they won't do anything malicious, it's trust that they'll look after their key and won't allow a situation where someone else would have access. They need to be able to work with the rest of the team and take responsibility for any mistakes they make. I didn't call anyone's trustworthiness into question. I'm responding to schiv's statement that it's not a matter of safety.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Xyne wrote: The discussion period for graysky's application is over. It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68 The voting period has ended. The finally tally was yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4 Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected. @graysky I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these results. I think that you have demonstrated skills beyond several previously successful candidates and your contributions are valued by many in the community. I hope that this result will not leave a bad impression. You may apply again after 3 months if you choose. @TUs Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed. The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle. There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. Voting is not an expression of personal opinion. It is a means of quality control and I would say that it is your obligation to participate in the discussion if you have opinions one way or the other. tl;dr: wtf? Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Xyne wrote: The discussion period for graysky's application is over. It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68 The voting period has ended. The finally tally was yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4 Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected. Thanks for supporting the application, Xyne, and to those who participated in the subsequent discussion. I was really happy to have read the kind words from some of the the non-TUs who posted in support of me as well. Thanks guys! I'll continue to be an active member of the community albeit as a mere mortal :p
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM, member graysky gray...@archlinux.uswrote: Thanks for supporting the application, Xyne, and to those who participated in the subsequent discussion. I was really happy to have read the kind words from some of the the non-TUs who posted in support of me as well. Thanks guys! I'll continue to be an active member of the community albeit as a mere mortal :p I really really hope that despite of this fiasco you will still have the same motivation to maintain your *excellent* projects that help us mere mortals having a great archlinux experience. I my eyes (and probably I can speak for many here) you are a Trusted User already, since we trust you with the core of our system. Keep up the great work, and thank you for being such a valuable member of the community. I agree with xyne wholeheartedly and want to express my surprise about the result. But who am I to object :(
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 17:51:42 schreef Xyne: Xyne wrote: The discussion period for graysky's application is over. It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68 The voting period has ended. The finally tally was yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4 Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected. @graysky I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these results. I think that you have demonstrated skills beyond several previously successful candidates and your contributions are valued by many in the community. I hope that this result will not leave a bad impression. You may apply again after 3 months if you choose. @TUs Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed. The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle. There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. Voting is not an expression of personal opinion. It is a means of quality control and I would say that it is your obligation to participate in the discussion if you have opinions one way or the other. Then the only thing i can say is: I'm sorry i did not participate in the discussion. I only had a positive idea about graysky, nothing more nothing less. I'm also surprised he did not make it in. I'm also sorry for that. There is nothing else to say now: better luck next time, i will be happy to see you (graysky) re-apply for TU. Please do. tl;dr: wtf? Regards, Xyne -- Ike ps: for all the thunderbird users out there, i know my signature will not be valid. please use something that works like mutt, claws mail, kmail, whatever. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 23 March 2013 19:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: The voting period has ended. The finally tally was yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4 Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected. I certainly didn't see this coming: I can't believe so many TUs voted NO without expressing the slightest objection or concern in the application thread, except for (extremely influential, apparently) Dave Reisner. @graysky: Please re-apply on June 24th, this must have been a Pentium bug. -- X https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?SeB=mK=nous http://tiny.cc/linux-pf
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: @TUs Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed. What about adding some field where TU can (anonymously) express why they chose No? IMO it doesn't make much sense to have such field for Yes and Abstain though, as that would be just annoying with no value added. Such field could introduce valuable insight to what other TU's think is wrong with the application. I think it can also help the newly accepted TU's, as they can learn what can be improved (unless it's something stupid like I don't like your silly T-shirt). Hopefully more TU's who voted No would express their opinions there, as that would be anonymous while the discussions on the mailing list are not. Lukas
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne: Xyne wrote: The discussion period for graysky's application is over. It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68 The voting period has ended. The finally tally was yes: 12 no: 14 abstain: 4 Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been rejected. @graysky I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these results. I think that you have demonstrated skills beyond several previously successful candidates and your contributions are valued by many in the community. I hope that this result will not leave a bad impression. You may apply again after 3 months if you choose. @TUs Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed. The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle. There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. Voting is not an expression of personal opinion. It is a means of quality control and I would say that it is your obligation to participate in the discussion if you have opinions one way or the other. tl;dr: wtf? Regards, Xyne I fully to Xyne agree here. This rejection was a big surprise to me. If there was a silent agreement of 13 TUs with the reasons Dave might have caused to say no, this should have made louder. Best Regards Stefan
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: @TUs Voting no rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period. If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them into account. If they are not then they should be addressed. In either case they should be discussed. What about adding some field where TU can (anonymously) express why they chose No? IMO it doesn't make much sense to have such field for Yes and Abstain though, as that would be just annoying with no value added. Such field could introduce valuable insight to what other TU's think is wrong with the application. I think it can also help the newly accepted TU's, as they can learn what can be improved (unless it's something stupid like I don't like your silly T-shirt). Hopefully more TU's who voted No would express their opinions there, as that would be anonymous while the discussions on the mailing list are not. If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is very wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself than risk offending the candidate by expressing it then either the objection itself is without merit or the TU is more concerned about his own popularity than the quality of the distribution.
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Xyne wrote: @TUs The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle. I was denied the first time I applied. I never heard strong arguments about why from any TU. The reason I found, is like here, an active TU express a tough opinion (from a misunderstanding on awesome in my case). I guess the team wants to be united and will not elect someone which was strongly denied by one of us. Now I see this as positive and only require to be solved before next application. There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result. Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have made up their minds. @graysky: Please keep going and convince every TU that you have to be aboard and reapply. Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] TU application from graysky - voting period
On 03/23/2013 09:59 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Xyne wrote: @TUs The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even admitted that he may be old and grumpy) and they were addressed without any further replies from Dave or anyone else. I simply do not understand how so many of you could vote no without raising issues during the discussion. Looking back through previous votes there is no other vote with this level of participation that has been split this close down the middle. I was denied the first time I applied. I never heard strong arguments about why from any TU. The reason I found, is like here, an active TU express a tough opinion (from a misunderstanding on awesome in my case). I guess the team wants to be united and will not elect someone which was strongly denied by one of us. Is that not putting popularity before the distro? Following one blindly is never good regardless of the person. Now I see this as positive and only require to be solved before next application. There is no point in raising your objections now but I hope that you do so next time. There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this result. Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have made up their minds. @graysky: Please keep going and convince every TU that you have to be aboard and reapply. Cheers, I think Xyne shows what being open and honest publicly should be like, especially in this voting process. Should other's not state why they agree to this one statement? From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the sheeple just followed the old and grumpy man, at least that is public appearance of this whole thing. As been stated already there have been some TU's I have seen fly through that do not even appear as active as greysky is as a non TU. To me and maybe I just love a good story, but there seems more behind the denial than was publicly discussed. @greysky from one non TU to another keep up the good work, some of your posts have helped me when researching problems I had.
