On 12/05/2010 03:48 PM, Ranguvar wrote:
Hello everyone,
Hi,
I first must apologize. It is entirely my fault that I have been
inactive as a TU. I'm something of an unorganized individual, and I
never got around to picking up some packages and putting them in
[community], making an account t
I have replied to the other mailing list thread on this issue.
Again, I apologize completely for my behavior.
Sincerely,
Devin Cofer (ranguvar)
Hello everyone,
I first must apologize. It is entirely my fault that I have been
inactive as a TU. I'm something of an unorganized individual, and I
never got around to picking up some packages and putting them in
[community], making an account there, or even voting. I don't have an
excuse besi
2010/12/4
>
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 17:07:54 -0500
> From: Loui Chang
> Subject: Re: [aur-general] removal proposal for Ranguvar
> To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)"
>
> Message-ID: <20101204220754.gc32..
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 03:01:51 -0500 Kaiting Chen
wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru
> wrote:
>
> > 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates
> > from the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting.
> > Because of that i'm starting a 3 days disc
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from the
> "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because of that
> i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.
>
> Please discuss the motion(real
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Christopher Brannon
wrote:
> Ionuț Bîru writes:
>
>> 2) no commits in community since the addition.
>>
>> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from
>> the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because
>> of that i'm s
Ionuț Bîru writes:
> 2) no commits in community since the addition.
>
> 3) he's not marked as inactive and conform bylaws this deviates from
> the "above", above being, 5 days discussion period + 7 voting. Because
> of that i'm starting a 3 days discussion period and 5 days voting.
If he had eve
2010/12/4 Laurent Carlier :
> Le samedi 4 décembre 2010 23:58:33, Ionuț Bîru a écrit :
>> hi,
>> because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with
>> them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the
>> proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedu
2010/12/4 Ray Rashif :
> On 5 December 2010 06:46, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow,
>> bylaws letter by letter
>
> The bylaws are what empower us to act upon and make decisions - it's
> not about following the laws word by word. Without
On 5 December 2010 06:46, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> we are all nerds and not layers and we are not in a judge curt to follow,
> bylaws letter by letter
The bylaws are what empower us to act upon and make decisions - it's
not about following the laws word by word. Without them, we wouldn't
take ourselve
Le samedi 4 décembre 2010 23:58:33, Ionuț Bîru a écrit :
> hi,
> because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with
> them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the
> proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure.
>
> Conform bylaws a motion p
hi,
because of my lack of understanding of bylaws and failing to comply with
them on my first proposal, i like to take the chance and redo the
proposal, following letter by letter the removing procedure.
Conform bylaws a motion procedure should be sent on aur-general with
reasons.
Here are
On 12/05/2010 12:32 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:
"The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.
A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal
o
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>
> maybe i lack the understanding of words and to quote from bylaws:
>
> "The removal of a Trusted User may also occur at any time.
>
> A motion must be made by at least two active Trusted Users for the removal
> of a Trusted User. (THIS IS ME)
On Sun 05 Dec 2010 00:15 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/05/2010 12:07 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
> >On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >>On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> >>>On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/05/2010 12:07 AM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
I'm waiting to see
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 23:59 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> >On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:
> >>On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >>>On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>
> I'm waiting to see your replies and then ac
On 12/04/2010 11:53 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
i don't see this being discuss any further and all
On 5 December 2010 05:46, Loui Chang wrote:
> On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> >
>> >I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
>> >
>>
>> i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only
>>
On 12/04/2010 11:46 PM, Loui Chang wrote:
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only
in one direction.
i m
On Sat 04 Dec 2010 22:19 +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >
> >I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
> >
>
> i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been only
> in one direction.
>
> i modified his account on aur
On 12/03/2010 12:06 AM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
I'm waiting to see your replies and then act based on them.
i don't see this being discuss any further and all messages have been
only in one direction.
i modified his account on aur to normal user. Ranguvar, i'm sorry for
this and when you'll hav
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:28:42 -0500 Kaiting Chen
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Ionuț Bîru
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
> >
>
> This must sound stupid, but who are we talking about? Is he on this
> page?
>
> https://www.archlinu
On 12/03/2010 05:28 PM, Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
Hi,
Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
This must sound stupid, but who are we talking about? Is he on this page?
https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/
no. because he
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
>
This must sound stupid, but who are we talking about? Is he on this page?
https://www.archlinux.org/trustedusers/
--Kaiting.
--
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspo
Laurent Carlier wrote:
> 2010/12/2 Ray Rashif
>
> > On 3 December 2010 06:47, Lukas Fleischer
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> > >> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
> > >>
> > >> Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and
2010/12/2 Ray Rashif
> On 3 December 2010 06:47, Lukas Fleischer
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> >> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
> >>
> >> Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a
> >> voting procedu
On 3 December 2010 06:47, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
>> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
>>
>> Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a
>> voting procedure should follow after 7 days of disc
On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:06:25AM +0200, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
> Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
>
> Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a
> voting procedure should follow after 7 days of discussion.
>
> Here are my reasons:
>
> 1) i noticed in
I'm probably the worst person to give advice on this given my
semi-inactivity lately (although I did announce it and I'm still trying to
keep my packages up to date), but if he isn't maintaining anything actively
in official repos, and does not respond to contact attempts, then I would
agree that h
Hi,
Ranguvar has been added in our team no more than last year.
Conform bylaws a motion should be sent and two active TUs and a voting
procedure should follow after 7 days of discussion.
Here are my reasons:
1) i noticed in January he doesn't have an account on our devel panel, i
asked him
32 matches
Mail list logo
