On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal in fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.
I have been honest and I've tried to provide you with data. You, on the other hand, have made wild claims about the proposal ruining the system, etcetera. You have provided no data, and no proof for your claims.
YOUR data did NOT support your claims of resource overload. In fact the data you showed was way too simplistic to garner anything from them. I was being polite not mentioning that a second time yesterday. And yeah I mentioned it before. And someone else brought that to your attention too. As for "wild claims" . I made no claims about "ruining the system". I have however suggested that we will have less freedom and OTHER TUs have pointed out that they will be LESS IMCLINED to spend time contributing. If that means les rather than more as a result of implementing your proposal, well you can call that "wild", but I just would call it likely. Please let us keep this an honest discussion.
If anything you are the one being dishonest. Why don't you be honest about the fact that you never gave this proposal a chance? Your first protests were not about us being dishonest or about there being no need for increased server resources. They were about the claim that the TU system never held any value in votes before. That you were *promised* votes would never mean anything.
Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL run across those discussions about the voting being added to the TU/Aur system. At that time we were SPECIFICALLY told that this would not be used for restrictions in the future. Writing about that now is NOT being dishonest. It is rather DIRECTLY related to what you propose. As for not giving your proposal a chance. Your very correct about that. I CHOOSE not to give it a chance. That is NOT however dishonest either. It is not a bad thing to speak out about a proposal one does not like and sees other way to accomplish the same result. I am sorry you feel my speaking out is being dishonest.
When I look back in the mailing list archives to January I can see the same fanatical mania from you.
From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-January/000498.html:
And remember that ANY time to make things more specific and rigid, you WILL have unintended consequences and worse a real chance for blow-back affecting you personally. It certainly will make the TU position less attractive to request and THEN we ALL suffer.
Quite a prophecy. Again, no evidence to your claims.
In fact someone within the last two days (I think it was yesterday) wrote exactly that. It might bear noting that your prophesty is that things will improve with your proposal. Yet those that are using a package and not voting on it will see the opposite of an improvement as far as their usage is concerned. And you HAVE seen people speak up and say they are NOT using the voting system becuase they too see no value in it. I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your proposal BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like an exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with your proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out that the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric. You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the repo more "efficient", THEN and ONLY THEN shoudl you be asking us to consider such a proposal.
No one ever said that this idea was the only good idea. There is definitely room for more ideas. There is more to be done.
Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel needs "to be done" ?
They've been said already but here are some for you: 1. Clean up [community]. 2. Improve community scripts. 3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.
I see no need for item no. one. That has been my complaint from the beginning. ANYTHING else I have pointed out, like the proponents of your proposal talking about impending resource issues has been DIRECTLY related to your bringing that up. I merely responded. If you lacked candor and/or did not know you were wrong about such things, well that is NOT my fault. Regards; Bob Finch