Xyne wrote:
done
In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting moderation.
I had attached the resulting docs for those who like to read plaintext. My
system reported them as under 40k so I thought it would go through, but the
encoding bumped it up to 42k. Sorry for the
On 08/10/2013 09:15 AM, Xyne wrote:
In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting
moderation.
This list is not activly moderated afaik. I'm just letting through your
messages whenever you post about them so this discussion can go on. I'm
not going to do any more
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:16:56PM +, Xyne wrote:
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
Ok. The first idea is simple to implement: When a new proposal (the
proposal type doesn't really matter) is created, generate a list of
current TUs and save it. If an applicant/TU is added to the proposal,
this user
On 2013-08-09 10:26 +0200
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
+1 from me. I think you should start a new proposal. Please send this as
an inline patch, adding [tu-bylaws] to the subject line -- like I did.
People usually do not want to re-read the whole bylaws and exporting the
attached file just to create a
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:50:36PM +, Xyne wrote:
[...]
The distinction between active and inactive TUs is meaningless and should
be removed from the bylaws, including the definition of quorum. Quorum will
therefore be some fixed percent of all TUs. As stated in this thread, up to 1
in 3
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
+1. However, I would like to retain the repeated quorum offense
condition. If there are a couple of TUs that work on the AUR (as in
uploading, updating and deleting packages) and do not participate in
SVPs, they might block decisions. I think that it is important to make
Xyne wrote:
Lukas Fleischer wrote:
The clause should probably also specify that removal votes take precedence
over
any other pending votes except removal votes.
What does this mean in practice? :)
Let's say that the discussion period for a TU application begins and the vote
is scheduled to
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Lukas Fleischer
archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On
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 meaning)
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
What
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
Any other opinions?
Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 7 August 2013 04:54, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote:
I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for
some bylaw amendment history:
https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/000127.html
On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer
archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
This is a more accurate measure since everyone who is active at some
point in time during the voting period is (technically) able to vote.
On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:
Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update
the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period.
What happens when a TU becomes inactive after casting a vote? Would
her vote
17 matches
Mail list logo
