[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] add README describing how to update the bylaws

Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz --- This is not an amendment to the bylaws themselves, and as such does not require any sort of vote. But I think this is rather useful to have, as there is currently not a case of perfect clarity for the administrivium involved in processing updates. As development

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] extend tu addition discussion period to 14 days

The discussion period is over, lets give the reviewers and applicants some more time :] https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=109 cheers, Levente signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] extend tu addition discussion period to 14 days

I quite definitively should not send patches when being incredibly tired, of cause the subject should be "14 days" matching what the body actually describes and changes. I'm sorry >.> Levente signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] extend tu addition discussion period to 7 days

Just adding this signed mail to authenticate i indeed proposed this change :) cheers, Levente signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] extend tu addition discussion period to 7 days

From: anthraxx Signed-off-by: Levente Polyak --- The discussion period for the addition of a new TU is too short. After having some chats on this topic with multiple TUs it seemed like a general consensus to extended the dicussion period to 14 days, hence this proposal. 5 days are rarely

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 01/24/2018 11:18 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: >>> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the >>> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 01/23/2018 12:54 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the >> Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" >> >> Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz >> --- >> >> Handy link to

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 01/23/2018 02:16 PM, Balló György via aur-general wrote: >> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for >> grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted? > > Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account > or do anything other than resolving

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

> Does anyone have any last-minute proposals to modify the wording for > grammar etc. in the event that this is accepted? Sounds good for me. But how can we check if a TU modify a user account or do anything other than resolving package requests (which is tracked on aur-requests mailing list)?

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 01/18/2018 06:18 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the > Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" > > Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz > --- > > Handy link to context and surrounding discussion: > >

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

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. With the current bylaws, any 2 TUs can start a regular removal process for any reason. This suffices to remove TUs

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 at 04:24:49, Xyne wrote: > > The intent of the first sectionm before the "OR", is to measure any sort of > > activity. Updating a package, voting or posting a comment shows that the TU > > is still logging in to the AUR and thus active in some sense. The point of > > the first

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 2018-01-19 09:16 +0100 Lukas Jirkovsky via aur-general wrote: >My common sense tells me that activity that helps Arch Linux to >prosper should be considered – be it packaging, triaging AUR requests >etc. > >From that point of view, it makes sense to not count voting as TU >activity, thereby

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > +2. performed any action that required TU privileges on the AUR, for example > +resolving package requests, modifying user accounts, or force pushing to a > +package base, but NOT including participation in a voting

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

On 19 January 2018 at 00:18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the > Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" > > Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz > --- > > Handy link to

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Clarify the process for Special Removal of an inactive TU

Not everything that is available only to an aurweb account of the Trusted User type, qualifies as a TU "privilege" Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz --- Handy link to context and surrounding discussion:

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] Voting Period

The proposed changes have been accepted. Final tally: yes: 27 no: 0 abstain: 4

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH 2/2] Add details on patch submissions

On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: +SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5 days, +a quorum of 75%, and a voting period of 7 days. Use the same formulation as the Removal of a TU section: Following the motion, standard voting procedure commences

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH 2/2] Add details on patch submissions

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:07:47PM +, Xyne wrote: On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: +SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5 days, +a quorum of 75%, and a voting period of 7 days. Use the same formulation as the Removal of a TU

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH 2/2] Add details on patch submissions

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 05:45:50PM +0200, Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:07:47PM +, Xyne wrote: On 2013-08-20 18:14 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: +SVP is commenced at the time of the motion, with a discussion period of 5 days, +a quorum of 75%, and a voting

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH 0/2] TU bylaws amendment

Ok, sending this before the voting period for Xyne's proposal is over since it is already clear that it will be accepted. More than 65% of all TUs voted yes and there are zero no votes so far :) The first patch is a follow-up to Xyne's proposal and is something he simply forgot when writing the

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH 2/2] Add details on patch submissions

* Mention the tu-bylaws.git repository. * Mention Git-formatted patches and subject keywords. * Promote `git send-email`. * Add note on submitting several patches at once. Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de --- tu-bylaws.txt | 23 +++ 1 file changed, 19

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] Voting Period

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +, Xyne wrote: Hi, The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70 I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just noticed that your patch doesn't seem to change the sentence mentioning

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] Voting Period

On 16.08.2013 11:00, Lukas Fleischer wrote: Also, I just wondered whether it is okay to accept a proposal before the voting period ends? Currently, there are 19 yes votes, 37 TUs and there is no way the number of TUs can increase until the end of the proposal. No, people should be allowed to

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] Voting Period

On 2013-08-16 11:00 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 03:15:27PM +, Xyne wrote: Hi, The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70 I know that it is a bit late for comments on the proposal but I just noticed that your

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH] Voting Period

Hi, The discussion period has ended. Please cast your votes: https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=70 Regards, Xyne

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:29:42AM +, Xyne wrote: [...] Patch follows: I put that patch on a separate branch (proposal-70) in the official TU bylaws repository [1], so that it is easier for people to extract the actual commit and review the changes in the way they prefer. I think it is a

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

Lukas Jirkovsky wrote: I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this into two commits, one containing the little changes like referring to trusted users as TUs or explicitly mentioning the aur-general and

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: ... * remove distinction between active and inactive TUs So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see these changes cover

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

On 11 August 2013 18:29, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: The current by-laws try to automate a process that requires human discretion. This version retains automation for extreme cases and relies on human discretion for the rest. Alright, this justifies those changes. Good to go on the rest,

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

On 9 August 2013 13:29, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: Hi, Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous thread: I can't obviously comment on grammar as I'm not a native speaker, so I have just a single comment. I think it may be better to split this into two

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

Xyne wrote: done In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting moderation. I had attached the resulting docs for those who like to read plaintext. My system reported them as under 40k so I thought it would go through, but the encoding bumped it up to 42k. Sorry for the

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

Hi, Here's a patch for the TU-bylaws that resulted from discussion in the previous thread: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2013-August/024745.html I hope this is in the correct format. I haven't used git send-email because I still haven't configured it and didn't want to

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On 08/10/2013 09:15 AM, Xyne wrote: In case anyone is wondering, the message seems to still be awaiting moderation. This list is not activly moderated afaik. I'm just letting through your messages whenever you post about them so this discussion can go on. I'm not going to do any more

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws][PATCH]

On 9 August 2013 19:29, Xyne x...@archlinux.ca wrote: ... * remove distinction between active and inactive TUs So now what happens when so-called active or inactive TUs do not vote and prevent quorum from being established? No action is taken? I see these changes cover disappearing TUs, but not

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 02:16:56PM +, Xyne wrote: Lukas Fleischer wrote: Ok. The first idea is simple to implement: When a new proposal (the proposal type doesn't really matter) is created, generate a list of current TUs and save it. If an applicant/TU is added to the proposal, this user

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On 2013-08-09 10:26 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote: +1 from me. I think you should start a new proposal. Please send this as an inline patch, adding [tu-bylaws] to the subject line -- like I did. People usually do not want to re-read the whole bylaws and exporting the attached file just to create a

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 06:50:36PM +, Xyne wrote: [...] The distinction between active and inactive TUs is meaningless and should be removed from the bylaws, including the definition of quorum. Quorum will therefore be some fixed percent of all TUs. As stated in this thread, up to 1 in 3

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

Lukas Fleischer wrote: +1. However, I would like to retain the repeated quorum offense condition. If there are a couple of TUs that work on the AUR (as in uploading, updating and deleting packages) and do not participate in SVPs, they might block decisions. I think that it is important to make

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

Xyne wrote: Lukas Fleischer wrote: The clause should probably also specify that removal votes take precedence over any other pending votes except removal votes. What does this mean in practice? :) Let's say that the discussion period for a TU application begins and the vote is scheduled to

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

Sébastien Luttringer wrote: The question we have to answer is : How many TU are necessary to have a motion pass. Set the quorum to this value and _stop_ cheating by : - creating more valid voters than others (the active) - find ways to ignore the quorum is not reach (so the vote has no meaning)

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period. What

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Any other opinions? Yes, we should drop completely the active statement.

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 08:24:20AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On 7 August 2013 04:54, Rashif Ray Rahman sc...@archlinux.org wrote: I think we need more opinions. Xyne? Anyway, if anyone's looking for some bylaw amendment history: https://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/000127.html

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 04:54:41AM +0800, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: On 6 August 2013 20:19, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote:

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period. This is a more accurate measure since everyone who is active at some point in time during the voting period is (technically) able to vote.

Re: [aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Honor TUs who become active/inactive during votes

On 6 August 2013 05:53, Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de wrote: Instead of counting the number of active TUs when a vote begins, update the number whenever a TU becomes active/inactive during a voting period. What happens when a TU becomes inactive after casting a vote? Would her vote

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Makefile: Declare clean target .PHONY

Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de --- Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index e0dcb17..17f28f1 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -6,4 +6,4 @@ all: tu-bylaws.html clean: rm tu-bylaws.html -.PHONY:

[aur-general] [tu-bylaws] [PATCH] Add Makefile and .gitignore

Signed-off-by: Lukas Fleischer archli...@cryptocrack.de --- .gitignore | 1 + Makefile | 9 + 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .gitignore create mode 100644 Makefile diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore new file mode 100644 index 000..2d19fc7 --- /dev/null +++