On 01/24/2018 11:18 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
>>> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
>> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
>> ---
>>
>> Handy link to
On 01/23/2018 02:16 PM, Balló György via aur-general wrote:
>> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for
>> grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
>
> Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account
> or do anything other than resolving
> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for
> grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted?
Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account
or do anything other than resolving package requests (which is tracked
on aur-requests mailing list)?
On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
>
> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
> ---
>
> Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
>
>
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
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 2018-01-19 09:16 +0100
Lukas Jirkovsky via aur-general wrote:
>My common sense tells me that activity that helps Arch Linux to
>prosper should be considered – be it packaging, triaging AUR requests
>etc.
>
>From that point of view, it makes sense to not count voting as TU
>activity, thereby
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> +2. performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR, for example
> +resolving package requests, modifying user accounts, or force pushing to a
> +package base, but NOT including participation in a voting
On 19 January 2018 at 00:18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general
wrote:
> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
>
> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
> ---
>
> Handy link to
Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the
Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege"
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz
---
Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:
13 matches
Mail list logo