> Hello Santiago, > > First of all thanks for rewriting this up: > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2018-November/029392.html
No problem! Hope I didn't miss anything. I was wondering whether to post the link to this thread, thanks for that :) > I have a few questions about your oversight comittee. You wrote: > > Finally, a third proposal (and the one I'm championing) is to generate > > an elected organism within the TU community to overlook the performance > > of Trusted Users on the duties they agreed to fulfill. This oversight > > committee would track the activities of individual TUs and ensure that > > they are in fact participating in reviews, submitting proper > > high-quality PKGBUILDS, and moving packages to and from the AUR when the > > package's popularity changes. > > > > The methods by which this committee would enforce better TU > > participation are still to be discussed, but issuing warnings and > > probably bring cases to the broader TU community regarding an > > underperforming TU may be sufficient and nondisruptive. > > When I understand this correctly you want to punish TUs when they don't > fullfill their duties. How do you want to accomplish this and what do > you mean with 'moving packages to and from the AUR whrn the package's > popularity changes'? So only this commitee should be able to push new > packages to [community]? "Punishing" was a word that I was avoiding. I wouldn't want this committee to be vested with power over TU's for obvious reasons. If at all, I would be proposing for them to: 1) Privately warn TUs when of any faults they are committing 2) Follow up publicly when the warnings are disregarded 3) Open a public case with the rest of the TU's to remove the offender, as it id describing in the bylaws[1] Cheers! -Santiago. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/trusted-user/TUbylaws.html#_removal_of_a_tu
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
