On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:44:19PM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Florian Friesdorf <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:31:37PM -0300, Angel Velásquez wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Chris Brannon <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Thomas Bächler wrote: > >> Im in favour of this, my unique concern is about how hard will be > >> creating another level of permission in the AUR, and some rules about, > >> if a semi-tu can orphan packages from TUs or TU-Dev, figuring out that > >> part, and assuming that will have an approbation, we will start > >> writting patches, so this can be a "slow" process, (2 months or so if > >> it's aproved? plus the time of discussion?). > > > > I'd give an AUR moderator all permissions to mess around in the AUR, be > > it packages of TUs or not. If somebody messes up, he/she can be punished > > later. > > > > Lol no punishment! I don't wanna hit anybody!;
;) still - I don't see the advantages of too restrictive rules. Let's start answering the questions - her my suggestions: > Well, other question how will be the process of selection of these > semi-tu? - (self-)proposal on this list with short personal description. - 10 people in favour: et voila - one opposing: AUR-TUs vote about it - less than ten AUR-TUs: TU's vote along the AUR-TUs > how will be called the group semi-tu ? trusted but not at all? AUR-TUs - trusted user of the AUR > there are many many questions until we can make this idea possible. > Just that. Let's get going :) -- Florian Friesdorf <[email protected]> GPG FPR: EA5C F2B4 FBBB BA65 3DCD E8ED 82A1 6522 4A1F 4367 Jabber/XMPP: [email protected] OTR FPR: 9E191746 213321FE C896B37D 24B118C0 31785700 IRC: chaoflow on freenode,ircnet,blafasel,OFTC
pgp1ly1iS7N8N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
