> 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 >
Actually the original TUs were selected by (two) of the devs. Then any two TUs could select more TUs. It was not until relatively recently that changes to this were made. SO....the original meaning and intent was a top-down selection. At no time were TUs selected by the "community" at large. Each of us, I am sure, can draw their own conclusions about this. Very best regards; Bob Finch _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
