On 06/11/2018 12.13, Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public wrote: > Yeah, but [community] used to be something completely separated from > [extra]. This is less and less the case (numerous packages were moved > from [extra] to [community] so that TUs could maintain them for > instance). The line between devs and TUs has become quite blurried, and > in my opinion who we accept as TU is highly depending on the meaning we > have for those repos and roles. I think devs should thus be concerned by > the quality of what we have in [community].
Or we should start caring about repo hierarchy again, and keep [core] and [extra] independent. > Here again I would argue that they are devs that have [core] pushing > rights, as well as devs that are Master Key holders. So even if you > don’t want to write this black on white, this actually means a small > group of people have the real control over the distro (technically, > Master Key holders could revoke everyone else). You can argue, but it's simply not true. Any developer has access to [core]. Master key holders aren't considered any better than other developers besides having more duties and no one has ever refused to sign new TU; for every master key holder, there is someone else holding revocation certificate. There is no hierarchy. > Because you think Arch work, we (as some TUs/devs) think they are a > number of issues. Any sort of council would be a big turn-off for me not just now, but also years ago when I joined TU ranks first. > Thanks for your input, and this is the kind of opinions for which I said > we should have this discussion here. Personally I'm not interested in this either and I find it difficult to find anything substantial in Christian's message indicating that discussion should take place on arch-dev-public and not aur-general. I know anthraxx is preparing actual outline but it's really bad way to start off. Bartłomiej
