Enforcing TU Bylaws
 

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:53:50 +0200
"Vesa Kaihlavirta" <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:

[cut]
> 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional
> infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities?
Mailing list is our main tool; and it works beautiful.
We have also a BugTracker, that too many of us seems to ignore.

By the way, seems that we have all, but use nothing.

--
JJDaNiMoTh - ArchLinux Trusted User

Enforcing TU Bylaws
 

On Dec 21, 2007 7:53 PM, Vesa Kaihlavirta <vpkaihla@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1) TU voting. Is it pointless in its current form? Are we pretty much
> reduced to rubber stamps in those elections?
> 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional
> infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities?

I'm very happy that we can get this all worked out, the last thing I
ever wanted was for our technically active TUs to leave and I'm sorry
if it came off that way.

Regarding these two points, I think voting is still important as it
remains a tool for some degree of quality checking and more
importantly a way for all TUs to keep in contact with each other and
keep up to date with what's currently happening. I think instead of
changing the fact that we vote we need to make it more convenient and
integrated to the AUR. I've talked with both Bjorn and Mikko on IRC
and we have come up with the loose idea of a voting and application
system that is integrated with the AUR (and more automated). I think
if this was created properly it seems to solve a lot of problems and
the AUR serves as an already standing code base for us to build on
without a lot of trouble hopefully (considering things like account
set up).

We really need to get this started though if it's going to get
anywhere and keep it as small as we can so it doesn't become too big
to handle. I don't want it to be like "oh, we can leave that for
AUR2".

> Also, I think we agreed on that no active TU should feel they should leave
> because of this thing.

Again, no TU should leave because of anything I've said. It wasn't
supposed to make people leave.

--
Callan 'wizzomafizzo' Barrett

Enforcing TU Bylaws
 

We continued this with Callan aka wizzo on IRC. I'll summarize, without the gnashing of teeth and pieces that incriminate me^W^W^W^W^W other fluff.

<vegai> I was looking for that Roman's mail you mentioned.

<wizzo> http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2007-December/006387.html
<vegai> thanks.
<vegai> Ok, that certainly is a problem.

<vegai> although it doesn't remove from the point that voting for new TUs is largely pointless
<wizzo> why?
<vegai> you didn't seem to reply my mail fully
<vegai> especially the part,

<vegai> We simply cannot protect ourselves fully
<vegai> from cases like that, since the one and only way to know if a person is
<vegai> worth anything is to give that person a chance to work and see what happens

<vegai> in half a year.
<vegai>*
<vegai> by this I don't mean letting xterminus hang on for that long
<vegai> but that when we get new people in, there's no way to know ahead of time if they're good or not

<vegai> i.e. whether they'll take 1000 packages and go or not
<wizzo> ok I interpreted your email wrong, I apologize
<vegai> could we have seen that when he applied?
<wizzo> of course not

<vegai> so what is the point of voting?
<wizzo> I understand we always run that risk, we can't stop it
<wizzo> because it gives us all a say in what happens
<wizzo> getting a sponsor is normally a good indicator that you can make packages

<wizzo> the vote is so everyone can give their say on it
<wizzo> I think people who just vote yes without looking at the applicant's packages is just as bad as not voting at all anyway
<wizzo> but that's not easy to stop

<vegai> also, it seems that a mailing list is not a very reliable medium for this
<vegai> since 3 of my previous votes were lost
<vegai> dunno what would be.
<vegai> perhaps there should be a TU application somewhere for all these things

<vegai> not try to tweak something existing to poorly support what we need, but something we create specifically
<vegai> can I/should I post this to the ML?
<wizzo> I agree with what you're saying but I think this need some further discussion with more people than just us


I suppose the two new things that came from there are

* 1) TU voting. Is it pointless in its current form? Are we pretty much reduced to rubber stamps in those elections?
* 2) Are our tools lacking? Are we willing to create and maintain additional infrastructure specifically designed for TU activities?


( 3) wizzo agrees with what I'm saying** :)

Also, I think we agreed on that no active TU should feel they should leave because of this thing.

--vk vegai