On Aug 7, 2013 5:44 PM, "Nathan Owens" wrote:
>
> Can somebody please change the name from textapp to texapp
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/textapp/
>
> Thanks
Upload a new PKGBUILD with the new name and a TU will merge the old into
the new.
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:59:35 -0500
Nathan Owens wrote:
> Actually to revise my previous email, can you delete
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/textapp/
>
> I have uploaded the fixed package at
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/texapp/
Done, thanks.
P.S.: you should use the link for the a
Actually to revise my previous email, can you delete
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/textapp/
I have uploaded the fixed package at
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/texapp/
Can somebody please change the name from textapp to texapp
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/textapp/
Thanks
On 2013-08-07 20:58 +0200
Lex Black wrote:
>Hello
>
>I would say, this pkgbuild can be removed from the AUR.
>
>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-matplotlib-pyqt/
>
>Outdated, orphaned, and the version in [community] offers the pyqt4 support
>
>
>Best regards
>Lex
done, thanks
Hello
I would say, this pkgbuild can be removed from the AUR.
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-matplotlib-pyqt/
Outdated, orphaned, and the version in [community] offers the pyqt4 support
Best regards
Lex
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 12:13 PM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +, Xyne wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current bylaws,
>> [...]
>
> This discussion starts to get messy. Now there are three different
> threads discu
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Sam Stuewe wrote:
> On 2013-08-07 11:33, Sam Stuewe wrote:
>>
>> and non-votes are not the same as "no votes". Perhaps, instead of a
>> super majority, requiring no less than a certain number of no votes
>> would be a good idea. For instance, allowing 50%+1 to pass
On 2013-08-07 11:33, Sam Stuewe wrote:
and non-votes are not the same as "no votes". Perhaps, instead of a
super majority, requiring no less than a certain number of no votes
would be a good idea. For instance, allowing 50%+1 to pass so long as
there are no more than 33% would be a fairly functio
On 2013-08-07 11:26, Daniel Micay wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +, Xyne wrote:
Hi,
I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current
bylaws,
[...]
This discussion starts to get messy. Now there are
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 02:10:45PM +, Xyne wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current bylaws,
> [...]
This discussion starts to get messy. Now there are three different
threads discussing the same thing, basically. Could we please
concentrate on the
Hi,
I want to discuss our notions of "activity". According to the current bylaws,
>If a TU becomes inactive without declaring it, "disappears", someone must
>motion for their removal for reason of unwarranted and undeclared inactivity,
>and the normal procedure for the motion is followed.
The
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
>
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 assoc
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Xyne 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 th
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 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 chann
On 7 August 2013 20:11, 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,
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 l
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 w
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.
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 othersid
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 m
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
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
>com
26 matches
Mail list logo
