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 such suggestion. > > By your logic, there is no situation where the first part of the > condition applies but the second part (after the "OR") does not. So we > could as well remove the part before the "OR" -- and, if that were the > case, we would have removed the statement before the amendment of the > bylaws. > > If what I am saying is not true, there might be a misunderstanding: in > this case, please describe a situation where only the part before the > "OR" applies but the part after the "OR" does not.
Well, strictly speaking in the event that there have been no prospective votes in more than two months, but the TU in question did vote for the votes from, say, three and four months ago but then dropped off the face of the community for the last two months, they would qualify for special removal under the part before the OR, but not the part after the OR. I think that having to contrive that circumstance indicates that it is, in fact, contrived and going against the intent. > In fact, even if you really want to be pedantic and take everything in > the bylaws literally, the first condition before the "OR" applies if a > Trusted User does nothing but vote: in today's terminology, the "AUR" is > the "Arch User Repository" (the collection of packages uploaded and > maintained by users) and the web interface is called "aurweb", see [1]. > So, while voting is a TU action performed in aurweb, it is clearly not > "any action that required TU privileges on the AUR" because the AUR > (package collection) is not touched. Indeed! I tried to make this evident in my initial proposal to this thread. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
