Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On Sunday, September 1, 2019 9:39:37 AM EDT Xyne wrote: > The lackadaisical approach to sponsorship is one of the main reasons that > we've moved to a system with two sponsors. Maybe I missed the joke, but > having nothing against someone and wanting to see a particular package in > community is not a good enough reason to sponsor someone. A TU application > may not be a matter of life and death but the process should be taken > somewhat seriously nevertheless given how many people could be potentially > impacted if a malicious candidate is accepted. > We need to agree to set the bar a little higher. That kinda speaks to the 'trust' in 'Trusted User'. It's not just "Oh hey, I want to contribute, give me the keys to the kingdom". You need to be vetted and checked out. Not just because of the potential for bad actors, but I think you also need to show you're actually capable of doing the job being asked of you. Sponsoring a TU applicant that you're friendly with, but has no real experience in packaging or any sort of development background, does a disservice to the community. It's not just, "Does the sponsor Trust this person" But "Can the community Trust this person?" I'm not saying that this is the case for this application, but that's the reason, I feel, why the process is involved as it is. Heck, it could be more intensive and I'd still say "Yeah, that's appropriate." Like Xyne said, not commenting on the TU application at all. Just responding with my thoughts to his comments. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [aur-general] TU membership application
On 2019-08-19 16:49 +0300 Sergej Pupykin wrote: >Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general wrote: >> >> Having nothing against is not the same as actively sponsoring it. All >> this discussion is kind of pointless until we hear from both sponsors >> telling us they actively sponsor Jean's application. Then the discussion >> period can begin. > > >Ok, I am not sure about "actively" :) but I want to see parsedmarc >package bundle in community. As well as ghidra and coturn (which is >already in community), so I sponsor him. Sponsorship is supposed to be an active advocacy of the applicant based on the sponsor's evaluation of the applicant's skills and trustworthiness. It should be based on a strong positive opinion of the applicant and the sponsor essentially vouches for the applicant by sponsoring them. The lackadaisical approach to sponsorship is one of the main reasons that we've moved to a system with two sponsors. Maybe I missed the joke, but having nothing against someone and wanting to see a particular package in community is not a good enough reason to sponsor someone. A TU application may not be a matter of life and death but the process should be taken somewhat seriously nevertheless given how many people could be potentially impacted if a malicious candidate is accepted. If TUs start sponsoring anyone who asks based on these latter criteria, the system is broken. Especially when we have candidates who just ask different TUs until they get two to agree. We need to agree to set the bar a little higher. I am only reacting to the apparent indifference of sponsorship here, which is independent of Jean Lucas' application. The latter will be discussed if and when Alexander confirms his sponsorship. Regards, Xyne
Re: [aur-general] Retiring my account, orphaning some packages.
Thanks for taking over these packages. :D I have transferred the ownership, and you are now the sole maintainer for these packages. However, for craft-git @kiedtl will also be co-maintaining, as he was doing with me earlier. > * python-gitchangelog > * craft-git Take good care of them. :) -- Thanks Regards Aniket Pradhan Byld Member ECE Undergrad | IIIT Delhi http://home.iiitd.edu.in/~aniket17133/ () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
