On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:02:51PM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > [...] > > > An exception to the standard removal procedure is made if a TU has not > > > done > > > ANY of the following for a period of at least 2 months: > > > > > > 1. added, removed or updated a package in +[community]+ or the AUR > > > > > > 2. performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR > > > > > > 3. posted a message to aur-general > > > > > > In this special case, SVP is followed by a discussion period of three > > > days, > > > a quorum of 66%, and a voting period of 5 days. > > 66% of the total, or of those that voted? > I also think a minimum amount of votes should be mentioned here (much > like for TU applications).
The quorum *is* the minimum amount of votes required. > > > > > The first point is verifiable for all cases except AUR package removal. The > > second point is verifiable in the case of votes but not for moderation > > actions > > such as merges and deletions of other packages. This could possibly be > > changed > > in the AUR backend. The third is obviously verifiable. > > Shouldn't TUs send an email to aur-general when a package is deleted? > I though that was the case, and that's why we include package names in > links; so that archival of this sort of data is kept in the list; for > posterity's sake. > That would mean the removal of packages is covered by (3). Nope, they don't have to. If a TU moves a package to [community] or discovers a completely broken package, he usually just removes it without notifying aur-general. > [...]
