Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
Xyne wrote: Lukas Fleischer wrote: The only difference is that a new active TU appearing during the vote results in an overvalued quorum if the number is computed at the beginning (and if the TU votes), whereas an active TU disappearing during the vote results in an overvalued quorum if the number is computed at the end. The quorum should be calculated from the number of TUs that were active at any point during the vote (perhaps with margins of a few hours at the beginning and end). I saw in one of the patch emails that you wanted to add a list of TUs to the vote table. Could you do this: 1) at the start of the vote, create a list of all active TUs 2) add a hook to the activity field updater so that any TU that becomes active during the vote is appended to the list, while any TU that becomes inactive is left in the list The margins, if added would remove a TU from the list when marked as inactive withing the first x hours of the vote. Likewise, a TU marked as active with only X hours left to go would not be added. Regards, Xyne On 2013-08-05 01:00 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: Another suggestion: Count every TU that is active during the voting period (no matter when, no matter how long). That is pretty simple to implement: Store all active TUs when a vote starts, add a TU to that list (for all running votes) whenever he becomes active. Sorry, I replied before reading the rest of the thread. Obviously +1 for this approach. Thanks for working on this!
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 2013-08-02 15:40 -0300 Angel Velásquez wrote: Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. Can you more specific? Which bylaws have been ignored? When? By whom? As I was the one who brought up the issue of quorum, the implication is that I have been looking the other way on the rest of the bylaws. Is that what you meant to imply? So, what's the point of having a Bylaw if you will not follow it?, why don't modify it and remove that part that you don't want to be aware?, being a TU is not about just delivering packages and orphaning / splitting packages on the AUR, TUs must work as a group, and it used to be like that when I was part of the team (I still feel part of the team but seems that oficially I am not a TU, a corner case that is not well documented on the Bylaws btw). What exactly are you suggesting? What is there to do as a team that we are not doing as a team? This sounds a bit like when I was your age, bands were better and the lyrics meant something. If you mean there have been a number of additions to the team who have been relatively quiet members then I might agree, but that in itself is neither against our bylaws. It would only be a real problem if it prevented quorum, but so far it hasn't. Personally, I don't mind with having extra hands around even if they're idle most of the time. It's not like we're paying for extra upkeep. Of course, that doesn't mean that TU should be nothing more than an extra title in the community. I just don't see the TUs as a three-letter Greek fraternity. So, according to that, I don't want to say names (i did said those names on the irc channel when I found the quorum situation on the last SVP but as I've said nobody react .. bad bad bad, guys.. dissapointing I must say), but I still feel that TUs must do that, not a guy which is not completely a TU -yes, me-. I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even important decisions are made there. That is not the place for it. This mailing list is the official means of TU communication. Don't show up here and casually mention that you have disclosed information there then withhold it here. It is petty and childish in my opinion. If you will say something about someone to a group of people when the person is not there, but won't say it again then the person is, then you probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with. Please check the last SVP and check who didn't voted, and some TU call the rest of the group for either following the Bylaws, or call for a modification of these Bylaws and allow these cases. The bylaws have been followed: active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. I understand that you have spotted an issue with our adherence to the bylaws, but it is not clear to me what that issue is, so I do not know how to even begin addressing it. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 07/08/13 08:33, Xyne wrote: On 2013-08-02 15:40 -0300 Angel Velásquez wrote: Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. Can you more specific? Which bylaws have been ignored? When? By whom? As I was the one who brought up the issue of quorum, the implication is that I have been looking the other way on the rest of the bylaws. Is that what you meant to imply? So, what's the point of having a Bylaw if you will not follow it?, why don't modify it and remove that part that you don't want to be aware?, being a TU is not about just delivering packages and orphaning / splitting packages on the AUR, TUs must work as a group, and it used to be like that when I was part of the team (I still feel part of the team but seems that oficially I am not a TU, a corner case that is not well documented on the Bylaws btw). What exactly are you suggesting? What is there to do as a team that we are not doing as a team? This sounds a bit like when I was your age, bands were better and the lyrics meant something. If you mean there have been a number of additions to the team who have been relatively quiet members then I might agree, but that in itself is neither against our bylaws. It would only be a real problem if it prevented quorum, but so far it hasn't. Personally, I don't mind with having extra hands around even if they're idle most of the time. It's not like we're paying for extra upkeep. Of course, that doesn't mean that TU should be nothing more than an extra title in the community. I just don't see the TUs as a three-letter Greek fraternity. So, according to that, I don't want to say names (i did said those names on the irc channel when I found the quorum situation on the last SVP but as I've said nobody react .. bad bad bad, guys.. dissapointing I must say), but I still feel that TUs must do that, not a guy which is not completely a TU -yes, me-. I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even important decisions are made there. That is not the place for it. This mailing list is the official means of TU communication. Don't show up here and casually mention that you have disclosed information there then withhold it here. It is petty and childish in my opinion. If you will say something about someone to a group of people when the person is not there, but won't say it again then the person is, then you probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with. Please check the last SVP and check who didn't voted, and some TU call the rest of the group for either following the Bylaws, or call for a modification of these Bylaws and allow these cases. The bylaws have been followed: active TUs that keep quorum from being established on a voting procedure for three consecutive voting procedures (they need not be on the same motion) are automatically brought up for removal procedure, by reason of unwarranted inactivity. I understand that you have spotted an issue with our adherence to the bylaws, but it is not clear to me what that issue is, so I do not know how to even begin addressing it. Supa easy, open the TU panel at the AUR, check who voted and who didn't on the lasts SVP (the last three or more if you want) .. make some decision about it, yeah we made the quorum but still, what about these people that is marked as active, do packaging stuff but are working isolated of the team? (seems to don't care about who we add or who we remove). After stirring the pot as somebody said to me, I consider that doing patches for the AUR is good, in order to make everybody aware and have no excuses for everyone. Let's see what's happens on the next SVP ;). Regards. -- Angel Velasquez Arch Linux Developer angvp @ irc.freenode.net http://www.angvp.com.ar signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 07.08.2013 13:33, Xyne wrote: I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even important decisions are made there. I like IRC because it allows you to decide on a basic direction. Of course everything should still be sent to the mailing list for the real discussion, but eliminating pointless stuff first seems like a good idea to me. Please point out when something has only been discussed on IRC and then presented here as a final decision. This really shouldn't happen. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
Angel Velásquez wrote: Supa easy, open the TU panel at the AUR, check who voted and who didn't on the lasts SVP (the last three or more if you want) .. make some decision about it, yeah we made the quorum but still, what about these people that is marked as active, do packaging stuff but are working isolated of the team? (seems to don't care about who we add or who we remove). After stirring the pot as somebody said to me, I consider that doing patches for the AUR is good, in order to make everybody aware and have no excuses for everyone. Let's see what's happens on the next SVP ;). After my previous reply I spent a little time thinking about the current bylaws and our notions of activity. I have posted a message to the list with a modified version of the bylaws to begin a discussion (i.e. the version I have sent is not a final proposal). The message is awaiting moderation because the attachments went over 40k (52k I think). I expect that to lead to some interesting discussion so I'll follow up on that thread.
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 2013-08-07 14:30 +0200 Florian Pritz wrote: On 07.08.2013 13:33, Xyne wrote: I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even important decisions are made there. I like IRC because it allows you to decide on a basic direction. Of course everything should still be sent to the mailing list for the real discussion, but eliminating pointless stuff first seems like a good idea to me. Please point out when something has only been discussed on IRC and then presented here as a final decision. This really shouldn't happen. I didn't mean to imply that IRC is altogether bad. I'm sure that discussing things in real-time can be much more productive, especially in the initial stages of something. As long as the important stuff ends up on this list then it's fine. My point is simply it should not act as a channel for an inner circle. I didn't say that final decisions were presented here based on IRC discussion, nor can I definitely point to any such case. I do, however, seem to recall that one of the AUR cleanup bots was launched after an IRC decision and I think that decision was later rebuked, but that's beside my point and I don't feel like scouring the archives for the thread, if it even exists.
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:23:54PM +, Xyne wrote: On 2013-08-07 14:30 +0200 Florian Pritz wrote: On 07.08.2013 13:33, Xyne wrote: I find this annoying. I have heard on several occasions that a lot of relevant discussion as well as shit-talking takes place on that channel. Sometimes even important decisions are made there. I like IRC because it allows you to decide on a basic direction. Of course everything should still be sent to the mailing list for the real discussion, but eliminating pointless stuff first seems like a good idea to me. Please point out when something has only been discussed on IRC and then presented here as a final decision. This really shouldn't happen. I didn't mean to imply that IRC is altogether bad. I'm sure that discussing things in real-time can be much more productive, especially in the initial stages of something. As long as the important stuff ends up on this list then it's fine. My point is simply it should not act as a channel for an inner circle. I didn't say that final decisions were presented here based on IRC discussion, nor can I definitely point to any such case. I do, however, seem to recall that one of the AUR cleanup bots was launched after an IRC decision and I think that decision was later rebuked, but that's beside my point and I don't feel like scouring the archives for the thread, if it even exists. Keenerd launched his bot before he was even a TU. His decision to do so made him reconsider his application for the cooldown period before re-applying. If he spoke to anyone about it on IRC it was with me over private messages. There was zero involvement from any Arch associated channel. I'm not aware of any other cleanup bots, but please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Angel Velásquez wrote: Supa easy, open the TU panel at the AUR, check who voted and who didn't on the lasts SVP (the last three or more if you want) .. make some decision about it, yeah we made the quorum but still, what about these people that is marked as active, do packaging stuff but are working isolated of the team? (seems to don't care about who we add or who we remove). After stirring the pot as somebody said to me, I consider that doing patches for the AUR is good, in order to make everybody aware and have no excuses for everyone. Let's see what's happens on the next SVP ;). After my previous reply I spent a little time thinking about the current bylaws and our notions of activity. I have posted a message to the list with a modified version of the bylaws to begin a discussion (i.e. the version I have sent is not a final proposal). There is currently a discussion around amending the by-laws started by Lukas. Maybe you could join us instead of restarting a thread? Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
Dave Reisner wrote: Keenerd launched his bot before he was even a TU. His decision to do so made him reconsider his application for the cooldown period before re-applying. If he spoke to anyone about it on IRC it was with me over private messages. There was zero involvement from any Arch associated channel. I'm not aware of any other cleanup bots, but please correct me if I'm wrong here. That sounds like what I had in mind. As I said, I was unsure that it was a result of discussion on the IRC channel.
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 2013-08-07 16:52 +0200 Sébastien Luttringer wrote: After my previous reply I spent a little time thinking about the current bylaws and our notions of activity. I have posted a message to the list with a modified version of the bylaws to begin a discussion (i.e. the version I have sent is not a final proposal). There is currently a discussion around amending the by-laws started by Lukas. Maybe you could join us instead of restarting a thread? Sorry, I had already sent it when I last replied. I can always reply again on that thread, but I think it will be better to discuss it separately from the patches.
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 5 August 2013 07:00, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: I don't really like the idea of having to specify an exact end date. If you are inactive due to, say, a long hospital stay or a lack of an internet connection after moving you will have to update the end date continuously. Being inactive usually means that you're offline most of the time so this might turn out to be a real burden. Yes, having to set specific dates is not practical at all. I was more concerned about doing away with e-mail, but I suppose it can remain a necessary manual step. So, the procedure would be as follows: 1. Send an e-mail to the list to declare inactivity 2. Mark yourself as inactive in the AUR web interface If we enforce this, then the bylaws need no amendment. In this case, (2) simply becomes a more convenient way to record inactivity (compared to, say, editing a wiki page). Another suggestion: Count every TU that is active during the voting period (no matter when, no matter how long). That is pretty simple to implement: Store all active TUs when a vote starts, add a TU to that list (for all running votes) whenever he becomes active. Fair enough. I don't think we need to care about those who mark themselves inactive during a vote -- they will simply have to remember to vote before changing their status or be treated as a defaulter (active but did not vote). This may require changing the bylaws. Even at present, given that a status can be changed any time, counting at the end of the vote would theoretically disqualify those who were active at the start, voted, and then marked themselves inactive. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:40:53PM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote: Hi people, [...] Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. [...] Let this discussion begin. Trying to automate this, I just submitted a couple of AUR patches to aur-dev [1]. Based on this, we could: * Add another simple patch that simply displays whether a vote is accepted or not. This leaves no room for discussion on the results of future votes. * Implement auto-initiation of removal procedures for repeated quorum offenses. That do you think about that? -- Angel Velasquez Arch Linux Developer angvp @ irc.freenode.net http://www.angvp.com.ar [1] https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2013-August/002502.html
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:40:53PM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote: Hi people, [...] Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. [...] Let this discussion begin. Trying to automate this, I just submitted a couple of AUR patches to aur-dev [1]. Based on this, we could: * Add another simple patch that simply displays whether a vote is accepted or not. This leaves no room for discussion on the results of future votes. I think we should not compute the active TU at the beginning of the vote. Some TU may have miss to set the inactive state, or be back from holidays during a vote. Should we not remove the active users in our bylaws? We consider that ALL TU should vote. Saying we remove inactive TU in vote to reach the quorum, is an hijack. * Implement auto-initiation of removal procedures for repeated quorum offenses. We could also add auto removal of MIA? There is a field in archweb with the last action of a dev/tu. That do you think about that? This is an excellent initiative! I heard some complain about people missing the vote beginning. Maybe adding some kind of - direct TU email (like for notification) when proposal beging, - direct TU email 1 day before end of the vote to non votant - public email (aur-gen) when to announce the status of a proposal. Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 4 August 2013 21:35, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Trying to automate this, I just submitted a couple of AUR patches to aur-dev [1]. Based on this, we could: * Add another simple patch that simply displays whether a vote is accepted or not. This leaves no room for discussion on the results of future votes. * Implement auto-initiation of removal procedures for repeated quorum offenses. That do you think about that? Excellent, but it looks like there's a problem with when the status should be counted. We must allow a TU to become active during a vote -- it will simply be wrong to deny her the right to vote simply because she was not active at the start. An inactivity status must have an accompanying duration, be it a real input (start, end date), informative text (Holidays til sept), or an e-mail (as is presently warranted by the bylaws). Having an input complicates the automation, but an e-mail also becomes manual burden. The case of an MIA is different. There may not be three consecutive votes during the period of absence, so automatic removal won't happen. The removal must be proposed based on other activity criteria, such as (lack of) packaging. So this cannot be automated. All of these are not set in stone -- the bylaws can be modified to better fit an automated system. To begin with, it must be modified if the proposed changes are committed verbatim (defining activity status, removal procedure), subject to a vote. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 06:32:57AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 4 August 2013 21:35, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Trying to automate this, I just submitted a couple of AUR patches to aur-dev [1]. Based on this, we could: * Add another simple patch that simply displays whether a vote is accepted or not. This leaves no room for discussion on the results of future votes. * Implement auto-initiation of removal procedures for repeated quorum offenses. That do you think about that? Excellent, but it looks like there's a problem with when the status should be counted. We must allow a TU to become active during a vote -- it will simply be wrong to deny her the right to vote simply because she was not active at the start. An inactivity status must have an accompanying duration, be it a real input (start, end date), informative text (Holidays til sept), or an e-mail (as is presently warranted by the bylaws). Having an input complicates the automation, but an e-mail also becomes manual burden. I don't really like the idea of having to specify an exact end date. If you are inactive due to, say, a long hospital stay or a lack of an internet connection after moving you will have to update the end date continuously. Being inactive usually means that you're offline most of the time so this might turn out to be a real burden. Another suggestion: Count every TU that is active during the voting period (no matter when, no matter how long). That is pretty simple to implement: Store all active TUs when a vote starts, add a TU to that list (for all running votes) whenever he becomes active. The case of an MIA is different. There may not be three consecutive votes during the period of absence, so automatic removal won't happen. The removal must be proposed based on other activity criteria, such as (lack of) packaging. So this cannot be automated. All of these are not set in stone -- the bylaws can be modified to better fit an automated system. To begin with, it must be modified if the proposed changes are committed verbatim (defining activity status, removal procedure), subject to a vote. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Angel Velásquez an...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi people, First of all, i'm writting this mail as an ex TU and user, not as a dev who want to push you how to proceed or follow the bylaws. Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. So, what's the point of having a Bylaw if you will not follow it?, why don't modify it and remove that part that you don't want to be aware?, being a TU is not about just delivering packages and orphaning / splitting packages on the AUR, TUs must work as a group, and it used to be like that when I was part of the team (I still feel part of the team but seems that oficially I am not a TU, a corner case that is not well documented on the Bylaws btw). So, according to that, I don't want to say names (i did said those names on the irc channel when I found the quorum situation on the last SVP but as I've said nobody react .. bad bad bad, guys.. dissapointing I must say), but I still feel that TUs must do that, not a guy which is not completely a TU -yes, me-. Please check the last SVP and check who didn't voted, and some TU call the rest of the group for either following the Bylaws, or call for a modification of these Bylaws and allow these cases. In my opinion, (now as a dev) we don't want to control what you do, because we as a user and devs trust a group of people that have their own defined rules, but if the TUs won't start following these rules, is simply stupid to have these rules there. Please don't kill the messenger, this is nothing personal against anyone or the group, I really appreciate most of the people who contribute to the Arch Linux project and I am grateful as an user for that. Let this discussion begin. -- Angel Velasquez Arch Linux Developer angvp @ irc.freenode.net http://www.angvp.com.ar This is a pet peeve of mine: if there are rules, they should be followed. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=163484
Re: [aur-general] TUs and their following of the Bylaws
On 3 August 2013 02:40, Angel Velásquez an...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi people, First of all, i'm writting this mail as an ex TU and user, not as a dev who want to push you how to proceed or follow the bylaws. Having that set, I am shocked about how the bylaws are being just used just for addition process, but for somehow are being ignored for stuff like quorum and removal procedures, some TUs look to otherside when we mention this subject. So, what's the point of having a Bylaw if you will not follow it?, why don't modify it and remove that part that you don't want to be aware?, being a TU is not about just delivering packages and orphaning / splitting packages on the AUR, TUs must work as a group, and it used to be like that when I was part of the team (I still feel part of the team but seems that oficially I am not a TU, a corner case that is not well documented on the Bylaws btw). So, according to that, I don't want to say names (i did said those names on the irc channel when I found the quorum situation on the last SVP but as I've said nobody react .. bad bad bad, guys.. dissapointing I must say), but I still feel that TUs must do that, not a guy which is not completely a TU -yes, me-. Please check the last SVP and check who didn't voted, and some TU call the rest of the group for either following the Bylaws, or call for a modification of these Bylaws and allow these cases. In my opinion, (now as a dev) we don't want to control what you do, because we as a user and devs trust a group of people that have their own defined rules, but if the TUs won't start following these rules, is simply stupid to have these rules there. Please don't kill the messenger, this is nothing personal against anyone or the group, I really appreciate most of the people who contribute to the Arch Linux project and I am grateful as an user for that. Let this discussion begin. There is simply no-one taking initiatives any more. I think the bylaws are fine, but if anyone objects to any particular clause we are able to motion for amendment. We are also able to motion for the removal of a TU. Ionut once digged out repeated offenders, sent some warnings, but that's about the last of such things that I remember. We also had removals that ended successfully. So, someone just needs to point out those who have been MIA. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1
