On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 01:29:31PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote: > ### TU council
I'll summarize this with: I'm unsure. This feels like smacking a social problem with a hammer. I'm also afraid of power imbalance as Ivy have noted. I think we should refocus this effort into something else. Explained below. > ### Minimum number of sponsors I like this idea as a minimum amount of sponsorships. This could also help getting the new TUs up to speed with how things work. This could combine well with Jonathons suggestions of a "probation phase" (Which we have anyway since key signing takes *AGES*). This could also fit well with having co-maintainers? The sponsors should co-maintain the packages the applicant adopts from AUR? > ### Oversight committee I think we should refocus this effort into something simpler; clarifying package guidelines and actually make it easy for existing TUs to figure out *HOW* to package different ecosystems. This could also contribute to removing old habits. I have spent some hours upgrading out Go and Python guidelines to comfort to something we can understand, agree on and doesn't forward bad habits from old PKGBUILDs. A lot of knowledge is implicit, or just derived second-hand from people that are presumed to know things. What happens if those people disappear tomorrow? How is the committee suppose to define a `high-quality PKGBUILD` if we can't distinguish peoples strong subjective opinions from factualities. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
