On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Eric Waller wrote:
> I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
> no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
> professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
> you give me some cre
I have tried to stay out of this in that I am not a TU and my input carries
no official weight. I am, however, a moderator on the forums and a
professional with significant experience in the field of trust, so I hope
you give me some creed.
I find your argument to have no basis in fact and to be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> The current (majority) voting system is fine -- making decisions based
> on consensus agreement is not a suitable method for the TU selection
> process (it would needlessly raise the bar for something that is not a
> matter of public safe
On 24/03/13 12:30 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion peri
On 25 March 2013 03:30, Xyne wrote:
> Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>
>>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt
>>> that
>>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied
>>> with
>>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion p
Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
>> the objections were still valid after that then they should have replied with
>> their reasons. That is the point of the discussion period: to discuss the
>> issues and reconsider them i
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Xyne wrote:
> Don deJuan wrote:
>
>>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>>> result.
>>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>>> made up their minds.
>
> Objections were raised and then count
I unsubscribed from the ML so I'm not 100 % sure that this message
will nest itself under Xyne's reply[1]. I would appear to be a
polarizing force based on the votes; I wouldn't be comfortable joining
the TU group given the more or less 50/50 split reflected in the data.
To my supporters, I'd lik
On 24 March 2013 04:42, Xyne wrote:
> If a TU has an objection that he cannot support publicly then something is
> very
> wrong. The application process should not be some mysterious black box of
> negative, baseless opinions. If a TU would rather keep an objection to himself
> than risk offendin
Don deJuan wrote:
>> There were objections! You consider them not sufficient to leads to this
>> result.
>> Everything that needed to be said has been said. After the voters have
>> made up their minds.
Objections were raised and then countered with arguments. If anyone felt that
the objections
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2013 10:23 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
>
> From a non TU's perspective D.R. was the only one who could
> publicly state why greysky should not be a TU, and the rest of the
> sheeple just followed the "old and grumpy" man, at least that is
> "public
On 03/23/2013 09:59 PM, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
>> Xyne wrote:
>> @TUs
>> The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
>> participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
>> admitted that h
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Xyne wrote:
> @TUs
> The discussion period for this application was relatively short with very few
> participating TUs. The only real objections were raised by Dave (who even
> admitted that he may be "old and grumpy") and they were addressed without
Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:
>On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne wrote:
>> @TUs
>> Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
>> the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion
>> period.
>> If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of the
Am 23.03.2013 18:51, schrieb Xyne:
Xyne wrote:
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce
On 23 March 2013 17:51, Xyne wrote:
> @TUs
> Voting "no" rather than abstaining indicates that you have reasons to reject
> the candidate. These should have been brought up during the discussion period.
> If they are valid then other TUs should be made aware of them and take them
> into
> account
On 23 March 2013 19:51, Xyne wrote:
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
> rejected.
I certainly didn't see this coming: I can't believe so many TUs voted
"NO" without
Op zaterdag 23 maart 2013 17:51:42 schreef Xyne:
> Xyne wrote:
> >The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
> >It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
>
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:01 PM, member graysky wrote:
>
> Thanks for supporting the application, Xyne, and to those who
> participated in the subsequent discussion. I was really happy to have
> read the kind words from some of the the non-TUs who posted in support
> of me as well. Thanks guys!
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Xyne wrote:
> Xyne wrote:
>
>>The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
>>It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
>
> The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
>
> yes: 12
> no: 14
> abstain: 4
>
> Quorum has been
Xyne wrote:
>The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
>It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
The voting period has ended. The finally tally was
yes: 12
no: 14
abstain: 4
Quorum has been met. I am sorry to announce that the application has been
reject
The discussion period for graysky's application is over.
It's time for the TUs to vote: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=68
22 matches
Mail list logo
