[ sorry, still getting used to using the mailing list :) ] Personally I think the votes should stem from the devs. Who else would be better to judge that the canidate knows the system intimately enough to do a good job of maintaining the packages?
---------- Forwarded message ---------- On 6/15/05, Jeffrey Lim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/14/05, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Paul Mattal > > > > > > We realize that right now the concept of a TU is not well defined, and > > > the process for becoming one is intimidating. So I'd like to start a > > > discussion on how we could improve the process and get more people who > > > would make good TUs on board. The two things you most need to do to be a > > > TU are: 1) be someone we can trust and 2) be someone who understands the > > > packaging guidelines inside out and is meticulous. Why are these > > > requirements? Because you'll be deciding on behalf of the community what > > > binary packages go into [community] and then go on to people's Arch > > > boxes and get run. > > > > My opinion was always this: if a user is to be trusted, why is he not > > voted in by the community... why is he voted in by a small group > > (subset? superset?) > > I think, if the term is to be "trusted" user, then the users should > > vote for them if they apply... > > > > that depends on how u define "trusted". As in "first-level trusted" by > who? I mean, ultimately, users trust developers, right? which is why > they use arch, right? and then developers trust TUs. So what is the > problem there? I would be totally fine with this arrangement myself. > > I trust the developers myself, and whoever they will choose to trust. > > -jf > > _______________________________________________ > arch mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch > _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
