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
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
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
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
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
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
