On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Xavier wrote:

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, w9ya wrote:

...

Um,,, ehem;

I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much more recently.

This is called evolution ( 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. )

First off all, let discuss this subject in peace, so Xavier please don't be arrogant ok?. IMHO the vote system can't be the "unique" indicator to move a package to community, for example, many packages (see from the first to the seven most voted on unsupported) won't be in community, for many reasons, even if those are high used/voted. Plus, exists many packages which won't have many votes and SHOULD be in community or official repos (those all i18n packages, aspell, etc), then the vote system can't be the unique indicator so there isn't an evolution at all.. I think the _problem_ of community is those all TUs who forgot using AUR then move everything directly to community.. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:41 PM, w9ya wrote:

And what you have done below is called taking/quoting something out of context to change it's meaning.

i.e. The important things to remember is that the TU's make up the rules AND that the voting system was put in place after assurances that it would NEVER be used to make decisions for ANY TU. (i.e. At ANY time in the future.)

Sorry but that is the history hereabouts.

Best regards;

Bob Finch

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Xavier wrote:

...

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, w9ya wrote:

...

Um,,, ehem;

I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much more recently.

This is called evolution ( 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. )

And this is top-posting, please try to don't do it, I thought Bob's reply was for me.. now I saw that he just did a top-post :P, as I said before let take this thread in peace this thread have the intention to improve many things. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User

Yes Francios I agree, and you are Firmicus seem to be a more moderating tone. Thank you VERY much for that. However Loui *is* suggesting coercing/forcing TUs to do things based on the voting system. It is part of another concurrent thread called "Packages in Community and votes" that he started. Very best regards; Bob Finch On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Firmicus wrote:

w9ya a écrit :

...

And what you have done below is called taking/quoting something out of context to change it's meaning.

i.e. The important things to remember is that the TU's make up the rules AND that the voting system was put in place after assurances that it would NEVER be used to make decisions for ANY TU. (i.e. At ANY time in the future.)

Sorry but that is the history hereabouts.

Best regards;

Bob Finch

Bob, I think it makes more sense to discuss this on the aur-general list, or, even better, at our forthcoming "TU Meeting". No decision has been made yet. And nobody has suggested coercing TUs to do this or that on the basis of votes. But we think there are important matters to discuss concerning the community repo. This is why Allan has suggested we meet on IRC before the end of this month.

Best, François

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:28 AM, Xavier

...

shiningxc@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, w9ya mailto:w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:

...

Um,,, ehem;

I would like to remind everyone that the TU system was NOT originated solely to be based on votes, in fact there was no voting until much more recently.

This is called evolution ( 1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. )

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 6:44 AM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 06:51:20PM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

the community repo is still a mess. it seems the TUs just put in what they like not what is requested by the community. there are still many packages with more than 50 votes waiting in unsupported AUR. Maybe a monthly pkg move in/out should be installed by the TUs.

TUs really shouldn't be adding packages if they don't use them. At the same time they shouldn't be adding packages solely because they use them. That seems to be happening an extraordinary amount. It's somewhat of an abuse of the server's resources.

This is the best reasoning I've heard here. The fact of the matter is, the community repo and the AUR still run on Arch's main servers. This uses our disk space and our resources and can have direct impact on a lot of things. Case in point: Dan just discovered a load issue on gerolde was largely due to a script that chmod/chown-ed the unsupported directory. As you can see, community and the AUR can have direct impact on the developers, and users.

Using the community repo as your own personal playground for packages only you and two other guys use, is a tad selfish and impacts all of us. Even if the AUR voting isn't the best way to move packages to community, it's all we have right now. Propose something better if you don't like it. But in all seriousness, throwing binaries up there "just because" can (and does) cause problems for all of us.

Running a pacman repo is trivially easy. Build packages, run repo-add, put it in a dir visible to a webserver. If there are packages that only you use, or maybe you and your friends, or maybe you're just experimenting with it, why not run your own repo until it gains popularity and you're SURE it deserves to be in community.

Um,,, one important comment; 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 systems. It was an offer to these (later called) trusted users. It was NEVER a demand from folks outside of the devs, but originated FROM the devs as an offer. In fact the very first system *was* just some user-based repos Aaron, offered up by one of the devs on his personal system and later, with Judd's approval moved onto archlinux servers !! It was felt at that time that is was a good thing to consolidate various repos and the eventual community repo was the result. Again, at NO time was a demand for this EVER made. The space on the archlinux servers was a **gift** from the devs. I was surprised by this gift at the time, more especially since I was the very first one to be offered this gift, but I came to realize that it was an important thing to have done as it has created both large growth spurts since then AND significant "community" participation. Bottom line: - If the systems are being overloaded, and the devs feel it is too much of strain to host these packages, they of course have a right to recind the offer to host private repos. - It is my hope that the devs. seek other ways to avoid this kind of oversight into something that has worked wonderfully as a resource, more especially since it is structured to NOT seek to restrict a TU's actions past his/her ability to not create security problems. Best regards; Bob Finch

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya wrote: place

...

for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux systems

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 then, do your "asking" ALL at once. Someone much wiser than myself told me 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. Best regards; Bob Finch