[aur-general] Followup on comaintainers and maintainers help requests

[Sapphira Armageddos via aur-general]

(( the following post is a cross post of the forum post here -
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1861865 ))

Since making the previous post about retiring my AUR account, the following
occurred to me.

* I still like doing AUR work. But it's not something I can reliably
provide like before. So I'm not sure how to handle being able to do it on
the sidelines without making myself seem unavailable on purpose.

* People might not be willing to pick up a package after it's been orphaned
due to not knowing the maintenance problems I've had with some packages in
the past.

* Some packages might not be used enough to know when the sources are
broken, thus needing updating.

* Some packages required maintenance from upstream developers due to no one
else being available to maintain it.

So I've compiled a list of packages that need co-maintainers, those that
I've kept due to low maintenance time, and those that are potentially
orphanable due to maintenance circumstances. This list can be found here.

https://write.as/l15zfw3838y89q0c.md

Is there anything else I should do to make it easier for future maintainers
to help ease their workload?

Re: [aur-general] Spam users: garrlee and harrywepich9

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

On September 4, 2019 6:04:29 PM EDT, Mark Weiman  wrote:
> My turn!
> 
> I've got a couple of spam comments on [1] from the latest two
> comments.
> 
> Mark Weiman
> 
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-latex/

Deleted, thank you.

--
Best,
Daniel 

[aur-general] Spam users: garrlee and harrywepich9

[Mark Weiman]

My turn!

I've got a couple of spam comments on [1] from the latest two comments.

Mark Weiman

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-latex/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [aur-general] TU membership application

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

On September 4, 2019 4:37:42 PM GMT+02:00, Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general 
 wrote:
>Em setembro 4, 2019 9:54 Alexander Rødseth via aur-general escreveu:
>> 
>> I did agree to sponsor the TU application of Jean Lucas, provided he
>found
>> another sponsor, but was not aware that he had sent his application
>without
>> any mentoring on my part.
>>
>
>Well, I think it should be the other way around, you first mentor
>someone and look
>with them into their packages and then decided about sponsorship.
>
>> I am not in favor of how the TU application process turned out, nor
>the
>> idea of moving proprietary software packages to [community], but I'll
>stand
>> by my word and sponsor him if there is another sponsor.
>>
>
>Sergej already confirmed sponsorship. But it seems neither of you
>actually mentored
>the applicant.
>
>> In general, we need more TUs and Devs and I think we should have a
>process
>> that feels less judgemental on the applicants (ref. the application
>from
>> Drew DeVault that sadly did not join us as a TU).
>>
>
>While I agree that we should have a more on point discussion with less
>bikeshedding
>regarding other stuff, I don't think that simply foregoing the
>discussion period is
>the way to go.
>
>> If someone dislikes a TU application, it's easy to vote "no" in the
>vote
>> that follows.
>>
>
>That's not how this should be faced. Ideally all the applications
>should have two
>sponsors that are actively mentoring the applicant and are vested into
>their success.
>If we had that, applications would be voted "yes".
>
>ps: I'm not making any judgment on the applicant here. I've talked with
>him privately
>regarding this application process. While he failed to disclose that he
>had asked another
>TU before, I don't think it was in bad faith.
>
>Regards,
>Giancarlo Razzolini

I agree with grazzolini,
sponsors pretty much agreed themselves that
there was zero mentoring happening plus
xyproto obviously is even surprised so many
proprietary blobs are about to be added.

Not judging here by any means about the
applicant himself, but I consider the current
state as void as we frankly did not go through
long discussions and bylaw changes to
implement two sponsors if at the end it doesn't
provide more value than having a bigger number
and "having nothing against because someone
wants a package in the repo" . 

I'm happy to cast votes after the sponsors did
what sponsors shall do and take care of their
applicant - obviously there is much room for
discussing intends etc with sponsors.

Re: [aur-general] TU membership application

[Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general]

Em setembro 4, 2019 9:54 Alexander Rødseth via aur-general escreveu:


I did agree to sponsor the TU application of Jean Lucas, provided he found
another sponsor, but was not aware that he had sent his application without
any mentoring on my part.



Well, I think it should be the other way around, you first mentor someone and 
look
with them into their packages and then decided about sponsorship.


I am not in favor of how the TU application process turned out, nor the
idea of moving proprietary software packages to [community], but I'll stand
by my word and sponsor him if there is another sponsor.



Sergej already confirmed sponsorship. But it seems neither of you actually 
mentored
the applicant.


In general, we need more TUs and Devs and I think we should have a process
that feels less judgemental on the applicants (ref. the application from
Drew DeVault that sadly did not join us as a TU).



While I agree that we should have a more on point discussion with less 
bikeshedding
regarding other stuff, I don't think that simply foregoing the discussion 
period is
the way to go.


If someone dislikes a TU application, it's easy to vote "no" in the vote
that follows.



That's not how this should be faced. Ideally all the applications should have 
two
sponsors that are actively mentoring the applicant and are vested into their 
success.
If we had that, applications would be voted "yes".

ps: I'm not making any judgment on the applicant here. I've talked with him 
privately
regarding this application process. While he failed to disclose that he had 
asked another
TU before, I don't think it was in bad faith.

Regards,
Giancarlo Razzolini

pgp5E50PKzsYr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] TU membership application

[Alexander Rødseth via aur-general]

Hello,

Sorry for the late response, I was on vacation followed by a period of
having little spare time, with regards to work and family.

I did agree to sponsor the TU application of Jean Lucas, provided he found
another sponsor, but was not aware that he had sent his application without
any mentoring on my part.

I am not in favor of how the TU application process turned out, nor the
idea of moving proprietary software packages to [community], but I'll stand
by my word and sponsor him if there is another sponsor.

In general, we need more TUs and Devs and I think we should have a process
that feels less judgemental on the applicants (ref. the application from
Drew DeVault that sadly did not join us as a TU).

If someone dislikes a TU application, it's easy to vote "no" in the vote
that follows.

Best regards,
Alexander F. Rødseth