On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM, kludge <drkludge@rat-patrol.org> wrote:
example 2: flagging packages as anything doesn't guarantee any course of action, in any of the repositories. bitlbee, in [extra] is 0.2.1 versions behind the upstream release. it has been flagged-out-of-date. the maintainer has been contacted individually. an updated pkgbuild has been sent to the maintainer and posted on the forums. but it's only getting older in [extra].
CCing Jeff on here so he remembers this. :) The rest is a response to the actual content.
so, while the aaron/thayer amendment to the proposal (or is it a separate proposal?) provides a couple useful new statistical measures, i don't see that it would actually generate better statistics. several ideas have been floated to solve this particular problem, like download statistics. those all need more consideration and development, though.
Err, I didn't think of it as an amendment or anything, I was just babbling. If you personally would like to develop a way to track download statistics, then please provide us with something to do this. I do not think this will give us very accurate statistics, unless we keep very heavyweight statistics (downloads / day or something, tracked over the life of the package, so we can see waxing and waning popularity). That's the way it works with open source - I don't think this is a valuable/good idea, so I have no desire to write the code to do it. If others think it is a good idea, then they must at least help out with the work.
it seems to me that there won't be any real consensus on a concrete proposal to regulate [community] until there's a mechanism for generating accurate, reliable usages statistics. i would anticipate a close vote; given the furor that's surrounded this proposal, i would also anticipate a lot of bad feeling on both sides arising from a close, binding vote.
if i were a tu, i'd move to table this proposal and form a working group to study the social and technical problems of generating good usage statistics. it would put off a resolution to the resource consumption problems, but i feel that, sometimes, "now" is not better than "better."
This sounds like way more bureaucracy (man, I can never spell that word) than we need or want. And with regard to your now/better point: I think it'd a good general rule that 75% now is better than 100% a year from now
in the meantime, it seems that moving all the games out of [community] and into [games] is one concrete and non-controversial way to take some load off the server.
Yeah, as was pointed out a while back, it's not exactly about resources anymore. We've solved that particular problem by throwing money at it. It may, however, be important to note that not all mirrors have the resources we do. Some mirrors only have 5 to 10 gigs of space to offer.