On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
You shouldn't let other issues hinder your application. Reconsider withdrawing, because it would disappoint your sponsor. You were asked a very simple question:
"Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?"
That depends. Here are three examples were it is pretty cut and dry: Using the good name of the TUs, using magic tu.php powers, or using information only TUs have access to. Before going anywhere near that stuff I'd get permission in triplicate. In other words, great responsibilities are attached to even the least of *TU* resources. However, an AUR scanning/reporting bot could be made and operated by any *non-TU* in less than two hundred lines of any scripting language. I'll agree the bot was poorly executed. The trigger thresholds were initially set a bit too low. Less than 1/3 through the scan I greatly increased the triggers (ignore improper nesting, ignore less than four PNGs/GIFs/JPGs). To act as if this is a black and white issue draws a parallel with a very unethical Non-Compete agreement: "While you are a programmer for FOO Corp, you are not allowed to write/release software outside of work." I have never and would never take employment with such a company. (Conversely, I have never worked on FOSS stuff for fun while on the clock.) What rights, that we have as ordinary users, are given up even outside of the TU sphere? Retracting my withdrawal would be cheating. I will wait at least three months, as a fair interpretation of the Bylaws requires. By the way, this ML has very strict and undocumented rules regarding attachments. I do all sorts of work to get my charts and graphs the under the 100KB limit, only to find that all PNGs are scrubbed out. The irony. Check my site later for those. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com