Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Feb 28, 2018 08:40, "Eli Schwartz via aur-general" < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote: On 02/21/2018 07:06 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Anyway, the voting period has now officially begun, so cast your votes > everyone! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=104 Voting period is over, and the results

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/21/2018 07:06 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > Anyway, the voting period has now officially begun, so cast your votes > everyone! https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=104 Voting period is over, and the results are in! Yes No Abstain Total Voted Participation 23 7 8

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 03:30 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > On 02/12/2018 06:52 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> Brad, please create a new AUR account, as you will need one to interact >> with the AUR for various TU duties if you are re-elected. (This is >> independent of whether you

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/18 at 05:15pm, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 02/12/2018 05:04 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > > Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the > > plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole > > group is still

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 04:15 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > I thought the idea here was to see what you are interested in, not what > I'm interested in. :p True, true. The packaging scene right now is both a blessing and a curse: very few packages exist that don't have a maintainer, but at the

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 05:04 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the > plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole > group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future > updates when they

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

El Mon, 12 Feb 2018 16:04:24 -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general escribió: > > Turns out that since my application, Antonio Rojas has stepped up to the > plate and updated MATE to version 1.20.0, so props to him! The whole > group is still orphaned though, so I would plan on pushing out future >

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 03:14 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > Not as a general rule, no, but if the forum mods are feeling nice then > the forum software does allow it. :) > > Likewise, Bluewind can edit the bugtracker database. > > Perks of being friendly with the people in charge. :D Heh,

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 03:30 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > Per Eli's email, I have gone ahead and created a new AUR account under > the alias "cesura" (my standard nick for the past few years). For > clarity's sake, I've also made my bugtracker account under the same > name. Based on the BBS

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 06:52 AM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > Brad, please create a new AUR account, as you will need one to interact > with the AUR for various TU duties if you are re-elected. (This is > independent of whether you maintain *any* packages in the AUR, which I > hope you will

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 04:36 AM, Christian Rebischke via aur-general wrote: > Hello everybody, > I kind of feel uncomfortable with this. I think that somebody who has > resigned, is not able to sign his mails and seems to ignore requests of > doing so, should apply over the normal way like all others do.

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:18:45AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > I respect that decision and will proceed with the standard application > process, proper signatures and all. :) Thanks, I just wanted to be sure that we atleast vote about your re-application and it's nice btw that

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

chris.rebisc...@archlinux.org> wrote: Well, you could at least starting signing your mails with the next email, even if it is a new GPG key. It's something that we expect from TU-Applicants.. and I see no reason why you should excluded from this expectation. That maybe sounds a little bit harsh,

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

2018. 02. 12, 03.52, Brad Fanella via aur-general ezt írta: > Yes I do. I've just gone ahead and updated my bug tracker account to > reflect this, thank you. Thanks! :) Then I think the next step is to create a new account on AUR, add your PGP fingerprint to your aurweb profile, and post a PGP-

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:52:04AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > Frankly I'm not quite sure what that would prove. If I don't have a known > signature on record, signing these emails doesn't do anything to verify my > identity. To imply that I'm "ignoring requests" is a bit

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Do you still have access to your bug tracker account? Can you update your email address here? https://bugs.archlinux.org/user/7923 Yes I do. I've just gone ahead and updated my bug tracker account to reflect this, thank you. wrote: [...] is not able to sign his

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:03:32AM -0600, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > > It's been around in some incarnation since 2007, and you have a > > filled-in profile at > > https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella > > > > So I assumed you must have at one point had access

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

2018. 02. 12, 01.28, Brad Fanella via aur-general: > I'm not sure that would clear up doubts about malicious intent. Do you still have access to your bug tracker account? Can you update your email address here? https://bugs.archlinux.org/user/7923 -- György Balló Trusted User signature.asc

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

> It's been around in some incarnation since 2007, and you have a > filled-in profile at > https://www.archlinux.org/people/trusted-user-fellows/#bfanella > > So I assumed you must have at one point had access to it, even if > it's > been long enough that you have forgotten and/or lost track --

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/12/2018 02:28 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > Do you still have access to your archweb account? If so, you could > update that with your GPG key/new email address and post a confirmation > email signed with that key to this thread. :D > > > I don't believe Archweb was even active

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Do you still have access to your archweb account? If so, you could update that with your GPG key/new email address and post a confirmation email signed with that key to this thread. :D I don't believe Archweb was even active when I was a TU, sadly. :( I suppose the worst-case scenario would

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/11/2018 02:54 PM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: >> * The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied >> with >> in 2010. [1] >> * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or >> the >> 2010 application, as to remove doubts. >> * The "itsbrad212"

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 11/02/18 at 01:54pm, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: * The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with in 2010. [1] * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the 2010 application, as to remove doubts. * The "itsbrad212" account is no

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

> * The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied > with > in 2010. [1] > * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or > the > 2010 application, as to remove doubts. > * The "itsbrad212" account is no longer present on AUR. > * The website on the

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Alad Wenter via aur-general writes: > * The originally sent email does not match the email Brad applied with > in 2010. [1] > * There is no GPG signature, neither on the current application or the > 2010 application, as to remove doubts. > * The "itsbrad212" account

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 09:50:23PM +0100, Marcin Wieczorek wrote: > Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general writes: > > I'm not sure if, in this case, he would need a sponsor or not. I don't > > think we need to amend the bylaws to add this special case for a returning > >

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general writes: > I'm not sure if, in this case, he would need a sponsor or not. I don't > think we need to amend the bylaws to add this special case for a returning > TU, but I do think the standard procedure should be followed. One of you

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Em fevereiro 9, 2018 13:29 Alad Wenter via aur-general escreveu: It seems we have no clause in the TU Bylaws [1] on what to do if a Fellow wants to resume his position as TU. That said, I doubt any of us would object when we consider your email as the "application" and simply start the vote

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 01:25:05AM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 02/09/2018 01:00 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post > > as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on

Re: [aur-general] TU (re-)Application

On 02/09/2018 01:00 AM, Brad Fanella via aur-general wrote: > Hi all, > > Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post > as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on almost > 7 years later, I'm still an avid Arch user, and have struck a balance > in my

[aur-general] TU (re-)Application

Hi all, Perhaps this is a bit unorthodox, but in 2011 I resigned from my post as a TU for personal and time-related reasons [1]. Coming up on almost 7 years later, I'm still an avid Arch user, and have struck a balance in my life where I'm much more capable of contributing to open-source projects