I'd like to rework this to be much more descriptive:
Problems with the current system
- Solutions for problem A
- Solution foo
- overall pros
- overall cons
- Solution bar
- Solution foo
- Solutions for problem B
Other discussion topics
- Structured repo pruning method
- Redesign of the whole AUR and community backend.
- Related to above: Add support for arch=('any') in the official servers. This will cut down a lot of disk space.
- Move repo RCS from CVS to git.
- Move some games from community to arch-games
- Have some soft limits for uploading new packages, with the recommendation that a TU ask on the mailing list supplying a reason why it should be uploaded. (only required if it would break the limit)
Draft of a proposal to vote upon
Required Number of votes
Why three votes? As far as I am concerned we should require at least 10 votes. The "old" TUs know that we use to have 20 votes as a guideline. -- Allan
- I thought three votes would be a nice leniant way to start. It would remove the wholly unpopular packages and still retain some slightly popular packages. I was also afraid that if the requirement was too high there would be a huge protest from the Trusted Users.
- Daenyth and I did a little research and found that if all packages with under four votes are removed we would save about 2G of space (including 686 and x86-64 repos) and 490/1853 pkgs. That's about a 26% reduction in potential IO requirement since the community daemon and other scripts scan through the whole repo when making sure everything is up to date. That's quite a decent conservation considering it's only packages under four votes.
- - Louipc 19:33, 13 November 2008 (EST)