I think you wrong to begin the vote procedure without a discussion period. Ok, we had that, but no one TU posted nothing about and this should warn you.

I tried to contact with some TUs who took me constructive critics in the first application, and they gave me positive feedbacks by now (but maybe they will answer too). I think a silent discussion period in this case could give chances to hope in a successful voting period instead of warning us (me and Sergej), because if there was any problem with someone in the past that was explained in the discussion period to clarify it, because that's why discussion period exists :) Some TUs reassured me meanwhile, so I really hoped because I love Archlinux :P

Though I voted 'abstain' I am sorry for Laszlo, but seems that Arch is not his way. After the 'big fails' (the first application) he did a bad impression and bad impressions are hard to clean.

You're right Andrea, I did some mistakes when I entered the archlinux community, and I've felt its effect, but recently I think the situation has changed, I experienced it from the feedbacks. (or at least I tried to change it :P). 'bad impressions are hard to clean' -> I imagined when I was child and a really bad boy huhh, I caused so much problems for my parents, I feel sorry them :), but we love each other since then, and I think the forgiveness is good human feature if the person can do it. I guess Sergej's purpose (and me too) was with this discussion for me to know where you, TUs see my weeknesses so that I will be able to improve it. Anyway, thanks everything and for everybody who voted anyway, mainly for Sergej whose time I exploited :) Best Regards, Laszlo Papp

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Ranguvar <ranguvar@archlinux.us> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

2009/12/16 Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s@gmail.com>:

...

Hello,

the voting period for djszapi has ended, and he did not get the majority of votes. He got

Yes: 4 No: 9 Abstain: 5

It would be nice if there would be some discussion about the reasons for the failure.

I've known djszapi for a few weeks now via IM. I had not examined his packages in _great_ detail, but in person, Laszlo appeared quite capable of TU work, especially considering his extremely active involvement with the AUR2 project.

I do not know of past issues, as I am still fairly new to Arch and newer to acting as a TU, but there did not seem to be any major blockers to provent Laszlo from becoming a TU, and because he seems to have quite a bit of knowledge and dedication, I voted 'yes' for his approval.

Would someone who was around at the time then please summarize what issues, if any, were present before?  Has Laszlo already applied once and been rejected, as it seems?

 -- Ranguvar

Laszlo has previously applied not long ago, maybe a month (search ML archive). Some concerns were brought up in a somwhat heated (IIRC) discussion period. Finally, he retracted his candidacy before the vote. I guess most TU had made up their mind at that point. So this time, they felt that nothing was left to discuss so everyone just waited for the voting period.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 07:15, Laszlo Papp <djszapi@archlinux.us> wrote:

4 months ago.

...

I guess most TU had made up their mind at that point.  So this time, they felt that nothing was left to discuss so everyone just waited for the voting period.

I tried to improve myself in this period, and some TUs gave me (more) positive feedbacks than earlier, so I didn't think it will be the same situation as 4 months earlier. But I hope it won't take forever until I will live, hehe :P.

I think archlinux has got good community/projects to spend my leisure time with it. Independently from this result, I can continue the AUR2 developing and Bug Day activities, etc, so that's ok, thanks the responses. :-)

Best Regards, Laszlo Papp

Judging by the level of maturity and calmness shown in this thread, I think he really has improved since last time. For what it's worth, I voted to abstain, as I hadn't had much interaction with him either way. Perhaps next time around I'll change that. I can definitely see progress here.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:

Judging by the level of maturity and calmness shown in this thread, I think he really has improved since last time. For what it's worth, I voted to abstain, as I hadn't had much interaction with him either way. Perhaps next time around I'll change that. I can definitely see progress here.

This is not really my business as I am not a TU, and haven't been involved with Laszlo on any packaging problems or AUR2 development.. but as I might be the biggest Laszlo's hater, I might have a word to say. Also it could look weird that someone gets rejected twice and no one has anything really bad to say, so hopefully I am going to fix that :) However, I have to admit I have big troubles staying calm and mature every time I was involved with him. But that's the whole problem. I could write a book about all the times Laszlo pissed me off. Probably 99% of that was about pacman development. But Loui's experience with him (probably for AUR) was apparently not much better, at least back then : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-July/006081.html By the way, this is not really a bad first impression. Laszlo has been active on pacman bug tracker or mailing list between June and November. It started quite bad, it became worse and worse, it was still very bad at the end. It would really take me a lot of times to gather all the WTFs, so what about the last one in date ? I recently got this link : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05895.html And here is my sumup (^W interpretation) : - he submits a bunch of minor/trivial pacman patches to frugalware in October and November - he spams/offends Miklos about getting push access to the repository (just for the record and comparison : in Archlinux world, there are several competent long-time contributors, and only Dan has push access to the master git repo) - he adds himself on top of the second list of authors, for his excellent contributions : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05892.html - he wants his name to appear on every manpage, even the ones he has nothing to do : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05902.html - after that, he disappears Note that I count this as one story. I have 20 others to tell about what happened in the archlinux/pacman world. But the bug tracker has the whole history, and the mailing list archives are all publicly available, so no reason I should waste my time more. This might be my main problem with him : he's a big time waster. He is also "extremely annoying" and " doesn't understand boundaries when it comes to communication" , as Loui very correctly observed back then. It is still possible that he has only good intentions, and all these problems are only caused by a language/cultural gap , or a maturity problem. Who knows.

This is not really my business as I am not a TU, and haven't been involved with Laszlo on any packaging problems or AUR2 development.. but as I might be the biggest Laszlo's hater, I might have a word to say. Also it could look weird that someone gets rejected twice and no one has anything really bad to say, so hopefully I am going to fix that :)

True, you're the only one with whom I couldn't reach a situation where/when we could clarify any gap among us, I tried it more times and I didn't find solution for it :((

However, I have to admit I have big troubles staying calm and mature every time I was involved with him. But that's the whole problem.

I could write a book about all the times Laszlo pissed me off. Probably 99% of that was about pacman development. But Loui's experience with him (probably for AUR) was apparently not much better, at least back then : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-July/006081.html

It's my previous application, not the current one :)

By the way, this is not really a bad first impression. Laszlo has been active on pacman bug tracker or mailing list between June and November. It started quite bad, it became worse and worse, it was still very bad at the end.

It would really take me a lot of times to gather all the WTFs, so what about the last one in date ? I recently got this link : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05895.html And here is my sumup (^W interpretation) : - he submits a bunch of minor/trivial pacman patches to frugalware in October and November

I sent similar patches for arch pacman too, for which I got very rude answers sometimes from you, Xavier, but I didn't experience this in case vmiklos, that's why I liked this contribution too, to tell the truth. Some patches that were rejected by Xavier in a very rude way, was applied by vmiklos even if the patch contained some mistakes, vmiklos tried to be helpful..

- he spams/offends Miklos about getting push access to the repository (just for the record and comparison : in Archlinux world, there are several competent long-time contributors, and only Dan has push access to the master git repo)

Archlinux != Frugalware, maybe you don't know frugalware(sorry if you know), but some person has got push rights too with lesser patch number/contribution, and I explained why it would be good for the development, maybe you missed it(sorry if not). At last I accepted vmiklos's viewpoint.

- he adds himself on top of the second list of authors, for his excellent contributions : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05892.html

You can see two sections there and I'm at the bottom one, where those contributors take place who had fewer contributions, I can't see any problem in it, and vmiklos applied it, but maybe you know better the frugal way than vmiklos :)

- he wants his name to appear on every manpage, even the ones he has nothing to do : http://www.mail-archive.com/frugalware-devel@frugalware.org/msg05902.html - after that, he disappears

It was discussed with vmiklos, and I accepted his statement about it, and everything is ok now, I can't see any problem in it again.

Note that I count this as one story. I have 20 others to tell about what happened in the archlinux/pacman world. But the bug tracker has the whole history, and the mailing list archives are all publicly available, so no reason I should waste my time more. This might be my main problem with him : he's a big time waster. He is also "extremely annoying" and " doesn't understand boundaries when it comes to communication" , as Loui very correctly observed back then.

It was at my previous application again, not at this one. I spoke with louipc about it, and he said me (more) positive feedbacks this time, so maybe it's the past you try to say now, but maybe Louipc will fix me. It's not my way, but I will show some mails from Xavier too: I saw this patch in frugalware, vmiklos applied it, and I thought it will be useful for archers too, and just see the answer from Xavier, he called me 'for something', but with it he called 'vmiklos' too explicite, who started the arch pacman development much more earlier than Xavier, so it's fair :( http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010185.html Another situation: I helped Eric with my answer, Eric figured out the problem, but Xavier started to offense me somehow without any neccessarity because Eric and me were happy with finding the solution for his problem: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2009-November/010014.html There is more, but it's not my way to offense Xavier. Otherwise maybe he was the person and his attitude why I started another project, AUR2 now, so thank you Xavier, anyway :) Summary: Yeah, Xavier was right, he is my biggest 'hater' as he said it, but It would be nice to find the solution for it with him to speak about these things in peaceful way, as others Tus did it, it would be really the best because we are active in the same wonderful community, I hope the best! Best Regards, Laszlo Papp

On Thu 17 Dec 2009 12:17 +0100, Xyne wrote:

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:44:39 +0300 Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello,

the voting period for djszapi has ended, and he did not get the majority of votes. He got

Yes: 4 No: 9 Abstain: 5

It would be nice if there would be some discussion about the reasons for the failure.

I understand the desire to discuss the rejection but this goes against the very idea of a secret ballot as each TU's reply will indicate how he or she voted. This may create tension on this list and elsewhere and I think it should be avoided. As bash has claimed, the answers can most likely be found in the previous discussion period.

TU votes were never meant to be secret, it only came about as the implementation of the voting application. We don't live under a violent military coup or anything. You should be able to identify with your thoughts in a free society. The discussion period is there for people to voice any concerns, if that creates tension - so be it. I hope we aren't all wimps that can't take a little bit of conflict. I'd like to know that our Trusted Users are able to voice their opinions and uphold the Arch Way, etc. Cheers.

On Thu 17 Dec 2009 20:31 +0100, Xyne wrote:

...

TU votes were never meant to be secret, it only came about as the implementation of the voting application. We don't live under a violent military coup or anything. You should be able to identify with your thoughts in a free society. The discussion period is there for people to voice any concerns, if that creates tension - so be it. I hope we aren't all wimps that can't take a little bit of conflict. I'd like to know that our Trusted Users are able to voice their opinions and uphold the Arch Way, etc.

That's a nice strawman argument which completely disregards social psychology and the real reason for secret ballots, even if a TU vote means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the universe. You're also confusing the discussion period with post-electoral discussion, which are two very different things. Invoking others to "uphold the Arch Way" in this context is completely without meaning and seems to be nothing more than a baseless emotional appeal that goes hand-in-hand with the previous strawman argument. I'm actually surprised to see such a crude statement.

I don't know what straw man you're referring to, but when it comes to TUs we are no longer regular users who should be hiding behind secret ballots. By merit and by votes we are representatives of the Trusted Users and of the community. I was only referring to the discussion period. By all accounts there were no problems, so the proposal should have passed. If there were any outstanding issues they should have been raised. The people that voted 'NO' should not have been silent. The fact that there was no debate implies that people were afraid to voice their opinions, or were weary of the conversation. In all honesty though, it's difficult for me to trust someone who cloaks their identity and hides their opinions. Perhaps you were offended because you cloak your identity. I didn't really consider that, I apologize. I mean no personal attack. This is just the way I feel.

If you really feel that way, change the TU interface to make the voting public and display each TU's vote next to his or her name.

I might look into that, at least for disclosing details for the Trusted Users.

I'll end this here before I suppress the wimp in me and flesh out my reply to Loui's post.

I would definitely be interested in an explanation of the social psychology.

2009/12/17 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:

Well, I am Inactive at this moment sorry if I didn't answer first, by the way I am on the office so I shouldn't be writting long emails and "wasting time" (since my boss conception).

I proposed a patch to see who voted, and I remember people who dislike the idea (BaSh, and others TUs) then, a method to know if a TU it was Inactive at the point that he wasn't voting or something, I created that patch (Loui pimped and then he applied it). I reject it time ago, and I still reject this idea. I still think votes should be secrets.

However, I am agree with Loui when he says: "I cannot trust in someone who does double cross" but I believe we should consider this idea next time we see an unexpected vote result. We do not need this now, now I trust in TUs without know what they voted. -- Andrea `bash` Scarpino Arch Linux Developer

On 12/17/2009 11:31 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote:

If I would do it only for credits then I'd do this work in the business sphere for a lot of money, but I don't do it, because I love it, I love to contributing/developing Archlinux in this wonderful community.

Best Regards, Laszlo Papp

i voted "no" and here are my reasons: i quoted that part just because, when we spoked, i did asked on why did you removed the old contributors from "aurman" and you said that you'll add them again. Looking at the package, still you are the only maintainer, even that package is adopted, so you like the be credit like Xavier suggested. He asked myself if i wanted to be his sponsor and i rejected the idea and personally i give him a lot of reasons in that day motivating that. i wonder how many TUs he asked until he find Sergej. I think that all that we are active on irc, but is just a guess. -- Ionut

On 12/18/2009 12:25 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:

...

He asked myself if i wanted to be his sponsor and i rejected the idea and personally i give him a lot of reasons in that day motivating that. i wonder how many TUs he asked until he find Sergej. I think that all that we are active on irc, but is just a guess.

I don't see any problem in searching sponsor, what did I do wrong with it ?

Best Regards, Laszlo Papp

nothing wrong with that, but i think you did the math and find out if your application can pass or not, based on the rejection. -- Ionut

Come on, let it rest. :) Best regards, A random reader of the Arch Linux mailinglist

Loui Chang wrote:

On Thu 17 Dec 2009 20:31 +0100, Xyne wrote:

...

...

TU votes were never meant to be secret, it only came about as the implementation of the voting application. We don't live under a violent military coup or anything. You should be able to identify with your thoughts in a free society. The discussion period is there for people to voice any concerns, if that creates tension - so be it. I hope we aren't all wimps that can't take a little bit of conflict. I'd like to know that our Trusted Users are able to voice their opinions and uphold the Arch Way, etc. That's a nice strawman argument which completely disregards social psychology and the real reason for secret ballots, even if a TU vote means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the universe. You're also confusing the discussion period with post-electoral discussion, which are two very different things. Invoking others to "uphold the Arch Way" in this context is completely without meaning and seems to be nothing more than a baseless emotional appeal that goes hand-in-hand with the previous strawman argument. I'm actually surprised to see such a crude statement.

I don't know what straw man you're referring to, but when it comes to TUs we are no longer regular users who should be hiding behind secret ballots. By merit and by votes we are representatives of the Trusted Users and of the community.

I was only referring to the discussion period. By all accounts there were no problems, so the proposal should have passed. If there were any outstanding issues they should have been raised. The people that voted 'NO' should not have been silent. The fact that there was no debate implies that people were afraid to voice their opinions, or were weary of the conversation.

In all honesty though, it's difficult for me to trust someone who cloaks their identity and hides their opinions. Perhaps you were offended because you cloak your identity. I didn't really consider that, I apologize. I mean no personal attack. This is just the way I feel.

...

If you really feel that way, change the TU interface to make the voting public and display each TU's vote next to his or her name.

I might look into that, at least for disclosing details for the Trusted Users.

...

I'll end this here before I suppress the wimp in me and flesh out my reply to Loui's post.

I would definitely be interested in an explanation of the social psychology.

Note that we used to vote in public until the AUR voting interface became available. People still got rejected. Allan