Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

> 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)?

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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: > >

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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