[arch-general] Fwd: [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a place for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux
This is about the hundredth time I've seen the "this is how it used to be" argument. It's stupid. I don't care how the TU system used to be. I don't. I care about how the TU system *is*. So let's talk about the present, and not the past please.
I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits your ideals better.
Aaron; this issue does not concern merely myself. Nor is the history merely a personal item. I have *ONLY* spoken about the goals as well as the structure that was implemented to achieve these goals in my history missives. And OF COURSE that SHOULD BE important as it *IS* the reason things are constituted as they are.
As I said in an earlier post, if YOU want to change things, you certainly can. No one will stop you. You are the nominal leader.
If you do not like my posting about what reasons are the basis for why things are as they are, you can certainly speak out in the manner you have immediately above. But short of "kicking me out" that will not matter much to me as it is not the purpose for our discussion.
One small piece of advice; if you decide to ask people that disagree with you to consider leaving, please be sure to make a list of such people; prepared before you do ask them to consider leaving. Then, and only
do your "asking" ALL at once. Someone much wiser than myself told me
systems then, that
to ask people to leave a small number at a time leaves you with enemies within your mists that will choose to worry about their own issues INSTEAD of your own. As a leader of men and women you should be aware of that.
Otherwise please be less strident, as it will serve you better.
I never asked anyone to leave. You're putting quite a lot of words in my mouth. The point is that as the TU system "used to be", there was no AUR, no community repo, nothing. It was a collection of remote repos that were collected in a wiki page. Then we got a unified repo (incoming, and later community), and then everything else was built on top of it.
Well asking me consider other things elsewhere ala this quoted from above; " I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits your ideals better." AFTER saying that my discussion items were "stupid". It sure seems like you saying that this is a stupid discussion and I should go elsewhere if I am not happy. BESIDES I used the wording "if" that was what you meant. I really only saw angry in your post. (AND I have seen people fired just this way.) Nope. Not a wiki page and NOT a collection in diverse locations as a start. I described this elsewhere earlier today. Please go re-read it. But yes, things were built on top of it. However until this point today, no one has successfully mutated the TU/community system into a statistic driven/based system. My history lesson was designed to point this out. I said as much about the promises that were made about how the voting was meant to be used and what it would NOT be used for. For the record, and as you know becuase you participated a bit the last time, this idea of morphing the voting system into a pre-requisite of sorts was chanllenged within the last two years BECAUSE of the history lessons myself AND OTHERS brought out. I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now.
Simply put: you can keep talking about how the system "used to be" as much as you want, but understand that that was BEFORE the AUR and BEFORE we had so many people doing these things. As with any body of people, the higher the population, the harder it is to keep tabs on things. With 5 TUs, it's easy to say "do what you want", but when we get the numbers we have today, rules need to be used.
Nope. It was/am taliking about why things are the way they are NOW as well. TUs are allowed discretion BY DESIGN.
Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new body of people who are ungoverned.
Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure that you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'. Be sure to take the time to allow for discussion and NOT call such discussion "stupid", as ignoring someone else's imput will generally lead to unintended consequences. If nothing else ignoring history means you cannot make a fully imformed diecision. Wiser minds than my own have taught me at least that.
In suggesting another group that is ungoverned in the way you suggest, I was not saying "leave this one and start your own". I was saying "do both and compare"
O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history" lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because you did not know of it. Best regards; Bob Finch
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now.
We can talk about the past until we turn blue if you want, but it's not going to help us. Have you ever heard the term "progressive thinker" used to describe someone? Progressive. Forward motion. What we have here is regressive thinking, and it's just dumb because it gets us no where. If it's just idle talk, then post it in a blog entry or a wiki page or something so people can read at their leisure. If it's for the sake of argument, then it's "regressive". I'm not trying to say your points are invalid. They're probably sound, but I haven't seen enough rationale to know that. You don't influence people to your ideas by saying "we used to do it this way!", you do it by saying "this way is better because (a), (b), and (c)". I'd just really like to see actual point/counterpoint here instead of "this sucks because we never used to do it".
Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new body of people who are ungoverned.
Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure that you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'.
No. Sorry. I don't have any impact on what the TUs do. The TUs are, and always have been, fairly autonomous. This is by design. I cannot change the rules without slamming some sort of iron fist down on them, which I will not do.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now.
We can talk about the past until we turn blue if you want, but it's not going to help us. Have you ever heard the term "progressive thinker" used to describe someone? Progressive. Forward motion. What we have here is regressive thinking, and it's just dumb because it gets us no where. If it's just idle talk, then post it in a blog entry or a wiki page or something so people can read at their leisure. If it's for the sake of argument, then it's "regressive".
Yes I am quite familar with those terms. See the comment below your following paragraph as to why it is not relevant to whether history has anything to teach about "progress(ive)".
I'm not trying to say your points are invalid. They're probably sound, but I haven't seen enough rationale to know that. You don't influence people to your ideas by saying "we used to do it this way!", you do it by saying "this way is better because (a), (b), and (c)".
I'd just really like to see actual point/counterpoint here instead of "this sucks because we never used to do it".
I did point out specific arguments... and today even and MANY times. You missed it I guess. OR you just saw it as a history speel and did NOT learn the lessons to be learned ***that I clearly pointed out***. It clearly is NOT progress(ive) to dismiss the benefits of the way things are now being run OR to call their (being) use(d) as regressive.
Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new body of people who are ungoverned.
Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure that you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'.
No. Sorry. I don't have any impact on what the TUs do. The TUs are, and always have been, fairly autonomous. This is by design. I cannot change the rules without slamming some sort of iron fist down on them, which I will not do.
Good. On this we can be in agreement. **You** should NEVER seek to control the community considering the fact that you are the ONE person that has the authority to overule anything the community decides by fiat. If there is a problem with the servers and the load becuase of the community repo, please let's talk about that and how the community can help. I was reacting to input that was already forming a basis for using a bot's output to determine and regulate a TU's contribution. Further it was NOT clearly pointed out that this was being discussed because of a server/trunk load issue UNTIL it was challenged. Best regards; Bob Finch
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:44 PM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
If there is a problem with the servers and the load becuase of the community repo, please let's talk about that and how the community can help. I was reacting to input that was already forming a basis for using a bot's output to determine and regulate a TU's contribution. Further it was NOT clearly pointed out that this was being discussed because of a server/trunk load issue UNTIL it was challenged.
Ok, let me put my entire reasoning quite plainly. You think "when the voting was added to the TU system the community and TUs were SPECIFICALLY told that the voting system would NEVER be used to make decisions about or demands concerning what any individual TU decided to add" (which, I might add, I cannot find recorded anywhere. Would you mind pointing me to some links, please?) I think that that's fine, but there is WAY too much garbage thrown around for no reason other than "oh, I wanted to try this new app, and put it into community! I stopped using it 3 minutes later, so I orphaned it" (read: WillySilly). This is unacceptable on the official archlinux server. It's not in the _spirit_ of the repo. We need SOME form of metrics, SOME form of control, and we have one. So no matter what "TUs were SPECIFICALLY told", I think that's a load of crap. You will always have people abusing a system. It is my personally opinion that the voting should matter more to people. If the voting system is flawed, propose another system. Don't claim "I should be totally free to do whatever I want on your server" - that reminds me too much of the Dave Chapelle skit where Rick James puts his dirty shoes all over the couch. You are not Rick James.
maybe you should continue this discussion in private, unless you think it might be revelant for the readers.
Charly Ghislain schrieb:
maybe you should continue this discussion in private, unless you think it might be revelant for the readers.
well, i think it is very relevant to us, but i have to say that the tone of the discussion isn't very professional, meaning both Aaron and w9ya. throw stones at each other, kids! try to find clear pro and contra arguments and present them in a readable, clean and structured way - without mean words, please. for the good of our community. regards Hubert Grzeskowiak
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:44:20AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history" lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because you did not know of it.
Your mention of history is irrelevant. You say things have always been the way they are now, so how can you know if a different system would be better or worse? You can't because you don't have the history.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:44:20AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history" lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because you did not know of it.
Your mention of history is irrelevant. You say things have always been the way they are now, so how can you know if a different system would be better or worse? You can't because you don't have the history.
Um, Loui... Aaron was the one that called *my* history lessons here "stupid".
But as long as you agree that there is much to be learned from history; you should WANT to go back over that past several years worth of discussions and read up on it BEFORE you make your suggestions . (As I have suggested you do twice already.) I am pretty sure you will find that a very few TUs agreed to limit/decree what was *historically* (and always) a TU's personal preferences** concerning his/her contributions to community. These proposals, as I pointed out earlier today have ALWAYS been been defeated by the TU group. <- That is the history lesson I sought to give. And the reasons why have been covered in my previous posts today. Perhaps it would make some sense to go read just today's output AGAIN ? (To date, these proposals that were defeated have generally come form NEW(er) TUs that see limiting a TU's community contributions as a solution to some problem. We have generally found other solutions AND the TUs that have been doing this awhile do not seem to offer up these sorts of proposals. Again I mention this as a history lesson.) As for Aaron's calling my history lessons "stupid" or "regressive", well I will let that speak for itself. Best regards; Bob Finch
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Charly Ghislain
-
Hubert Grzeskowiak
-
Loui Chang
-
w9ya