I've been with Arch since around 2004-5 and I've never seen such a hostility against a contributing user.
Konstantin clearly cares about his set of packages because they are the tools of his trade and of some of his co-workers (at a high-profile institution, not at some pet shop). It's also clear that he's not just a packager but also a co-developer of at least some of the software set. It's only normal for him to be concerned about the way this package group is handled, given the importance of its applications. That also was the very reason he applied for a TU. That's... fine? I mean, there's lots of people for whom the tools of
On 10/27/18 6:12 PM, Christos Nouskas wrote: their trade *at high-profile institutions* are php, openssl, nginx, gcc, or numerous others. I'm sure they're very concerned about these things working properly.
I don't regard Arch Linux as a *toy* of an operating system, fit only for idleness and hobby time.
Appropriately, therefore, I treat all, or at least the majority, of Arch packages as important things which Arch users in general and specifically, should be concerned about. I guess there are games which are unlikely to be of job-related importance, but most packages are important to at least some subset of users, or we wouldn't be so eager to package them.
I therefore do not ascribe any explicit importance or special consideration to anyone's job.
Furthermore, we have a very well working bugtracker within which the many people who use Arch Linux in professional, and yes, sometimes high-profile environments, frequently communicate their concerns about the packaging of particular software packages. This is called due process. It's something you don't need to be a TU in order to do. If the only conceivable way to to contribute to Arch was to become a TU, we'd have a very small and insignificant distro indeed.
To this date, I'm unaware of the fundamental purpose of the bugtracker failing our professional, high-profile users.
Now, even if he had been over-zealous about it, justifiably so in many's opinions, he had been a far cry from whining or implying oppression or telling bald-faced lies or being a control-freak - jeez, why such strong expressions? I read the word "implying" numerous times in the bashing posts and some arguments (not all, for sure) were even based on Konstantin's "hidden insinuations", not his actual arguments.
Mistakes do happen and I doubt that being a TU means being infallible or indisputable. But watching a man getting severely reprimanded over some petty mistakes, which had resulted from over-zealousness and not mal-intent, is just sad. It is pretty darn hard to make a mistake about whether you yourself have done three things when you only actually did two.
It is also pretty annoying for me, personally, to be flat-out told (before this TU application process even started) that I personally, would have refused to reopen a bug report for which there was a reopen request, save for a mailing list thread having been opened about it.
I stated pretty clearly on September 30:
"It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for the first time." I'm breaking a promise to not email you any more about this, but this argument is not correct. I did not say or imply that you denied to re-open the bug. I said it was denied. Which later I admitted was an incorrect statement from my side, because as you said, this particular one was not denied to re-open.
I received the response: "Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken." Again, at the time, I was thinking I did try to re-open this particular bug, when it was another one. This was discussed, pointed out to me and I have repeatedly admitted my mistake. Why am I, two weeks after the fact, being called a liar? I repeatedly explain that we are willing to reopen any bug that has a reopen request, without needing some sort of mailing list drama to force our hands.
But a month later, he continues to assert that the dates on the email thread *prove* that I only reopened the bug after his thread, with a pretty obvious logical conclusion that this fact is somehow relevant and therefore pertains to my own hidden motivations. I also never said or implied any hidden motivations on your side. I am
On 28/10/2018 01:40, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: the person constantly being accused of having hidden malicious intent and being a whiny passive aggressive baby. I was told by Doug that I whine and my whining didn't do anything. I maintain that I sent an email with questions on Sunday evening when I had time to, so I can give time for people to see it and respond when they want. I did not put 'urgent' in the title and I did not imply it was supposed to be - I explained why I care personally. I listed what I saw and asked what to do. I continue to assert that the backlash I received was disproportionate (as I showed from examples from other people's responses) and I have continued to defend myself since then.
Especially because it comes from the very people who advised him to apply as a TU and that man is now appealing to. I did *not* advise him to become a TU, and I don't recall anyone
I dislike the idea of encouraging a general perception in the Arch Linux community that anyone who files a bug report should also start some mailing list thread to ensure we actually respond to the bug report. If for no other reason than that we have 60,000 historic bugs, many of which are still open, and people would get pretty bored and stop reading the mailing list if it just became a copy of the bugtracker. Could you have not said that simply - e.g. 'Please allow for a couple of days before sending emails. We discourage this on the mailing list.' - to which I have possibly replied - 'OK, it was late evening Sunday and I didn't wanna leave it for the beginning of the week'. I am not a trusted user, I am not first-hand familiar with how everything is handled. I do not send emails every day. In fact, if you look in the history, I only send emails when I think there's a problem I have tried to fix, failed to address it myself and looking for advice. publicly doing so on the mailing list at least.
I did direct him to the due process for doing so, but that is not proof positive that I encourage and support his application... I would do the same for literally anyone whatsoever, even if that person was the CEO of Microsoft, a core member of some particularly ill-regarded Arch derivative like Manjaro, or an unabashedly public member of some three-letter spy agency who blogged every day about the noble cause of weakening security and injecting spyware into Linux distributions.
Everyone deserves the chance to try and be convincing to the general class of Trusted Users, whether I personally feel convinced or not. In fact, everyone deserves the right to try and be convincing even if no one feels convinced.