2008/11/10 Hugo Doria :

Done:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Meeting

-- Hugo

I suppose everyone has now had enough time to fill in when/if he is available. Any of you has time to go through the list to see which date/time we have most people available so we can finalize it (sorry I don't have time myself right now)? Ronald

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Hugo Doria wrote:

By my counts:

29-30 Nov at night.

-- Hugo

Great, good work! what timezone are we talking about? Please specify a GMT time, I'm sure we'll all agree ;) Ronald

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

Ronald van Haren wrote:

...

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:06 AM, Hugo Doria wrote:

...

By my counts:

29-30 Nov at night.

-- Hugo

Great, good work!

what timezone are we talking about? Please specify a GMT time, I'm sure we'll all agree ;)

Ronald

I think it has to be the 30th (Sunday). I'm not sure on the time.... Can people give their availabilities in GMT for this day. There looks to be a mix of timezones there and it is too hard for me to figure out without actually thinking.

Allan

For Allan will be in the morning, for people who are in Europe will be late at night 2am or 3am.. Someone wanna try with some hours? I propose 10 pm at GMT +01:00 for Hugo,Kessia,Paulo and USA people will be in the day (I don't know if you guys can be available on "day", it's hard, it's a sunday, i understand perfectly if you can't), what do you think guys?

-- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User

Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

For Allan will be in the morning, for people who are in Europe will be late at night 2am or 3am.. Someone wanna try with some hours? I propose 10 pm at GMT +01:00 for Hugo,Kessia,Paulo and USA people will be in the day (I don't know if you guys can be available on "day", it's hard, it's a sunday, i understand perfectly if you can't), what do you think guys?

I think I can manage that. 16:00 for East coast USA

Sounds good to me. -- Your Fortune... --------------- And 1.1.81 is officially BugFree(tm), so if you receive any bug-reports on it, you know they are just evil lies." (By Linus Torvalds, Linus.Torvalds@cs.helsinki.fi)

Allan McRae wrote:

The first TU meeting in a long time (over a year!) is on at 9.00pm GMT, Sunday 30 November.

Or was that Saturday 29th :) It says the 29th on the IRC channel so that it is! Allan

Hi all; Some quick comments/corrections to Allan's Wiki page; - His first question/answer about the purpose of the Community Repo; <- The AUR was not in existence in ANY form for several years AFTER the introduction of TU **BINARY** repos. While Allan (and others) may truly believe that the community repo is designed strictly to be a place for popular AUR contributions there is NO historical basis for this belief. i.e. We the TU's, as WHOLE group, have *never* determined this to be a sole basis OR requirement for binary packaging. Nor, in the past when this has come up (and it has a few times), have we EVER decided to make such a decision, as it was considered to be a bad idea to do so for a variety of still pertinent reasons. AS SUCH, Allan's premise is flawed as is everything else on the page is based on this erroneous premise of purpose. (BTW, I have been told such historical examinations are "regressive" and as such NOT "progressive". I will encourage you all to decide if such an understanding is "regressive" or really just a useful way to gain knowledge and understanding and prevent mistakes.) - Allan goes on to discuss what a "popular" package is. There is absolutely no way to determine what 3, or 20, or what any number of votes truly represents for a variety or reasons. I have discussed just why there can be no correlation in a previous email. Prior to sending that email I asked for such a correlation and received none. I then wrote that email where I outline the flawed mathematics, I have yet to see a rebuttal. There is NO way to tabulate and correlate the votes as to representing even a percentage of users. Do NOT let Allan or anyone else tell you otherwise. It simply is NOT true at this time. TO WIT; whether it is 3 votes (the original minimum suggested) or 20 votes; they are merely a number with NO MEANING. SO why should we place ANY **ARTIFICIAL** meaning to them ? AND why are we using them at all ? - It is also worthy to note that in the course of a week or two since this minimum number was first proposed it has changed from a requirement of 3 votes to 20 votes. What will the number be next month ? Six months from now ? Why should any TU even want to contribute new and interesting BINARIES when the number can change so quickly and by a small number of "leaders" deciding for him/her ? Why should ANY TU spend time *properly* vetting an AUR contribution through adoption only to have it removed at a future date because it no longer had the require number of votes ? FURTHER; when have we EVER let a small number of TUs make any decisions for the rest of the TUs ? IS it wise to change the successful TU system into merely a training ground for future DEVs and all of the TUs merely "junior" DEVs grinding out packages because they receive votes ? Where is the creativity in that ? - Finally, but far from the least important consideration, is that we are being asked to do this because of a lack of server resources. I would like to remind everyone that this proposal will only delay the day until this minimum number of votes is increased OR the servers will need to be upgraded. I for one would rather like to contribute some real hard cash and simply do the necessary infrastructure upgrades and NOT set such a precedence of paradigm changes in a very successful system. Changes that will be hard or virtually impossible to remove once they are adopted, more especially because they will NOT solve a resources problem for any useful length of time. Can ANYONE truthfully assert that these changes will alleviate ANY resource problems for any real length of time ? The only correct answer is no. And so the folks presenting the TUs with this decision have said as much in prior emails. ****** Oh yeah, DO NOT FORGET that there are no alternative proposals to remedy the server problems because they have NOT been outlined in enough detail to determine if this is the best or even a good proposal to alleviate these vaguely declared problems. ******** i.e. WHAT problems, or WHAT nature, and WHY are they NOW a problem ? Thanks for reading this far. I hope every TU really asks themselves whether this has been truly well thought out or not. Ask the tough questions. Seek an understanding of just how this will help and whether it is truly of merit or merely the beginning of other changes that will result in a paradigm shift in our VERY successful and truly unique TU/AUR system. Very best regards; Bob Finch THE **FIRST* TU. On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Allan McRae wrote:

The first TU meeting in a long time (over a year!) is on at 9.00pm GMT, Sunday 30 November. Afternoon US time, early Monday morning for me... we will keep a log for those who can't make it then. Anybody needing the TU channel key, send me an email.

I have made a page[1] with what will be the main discussion topic and what I propose to improve the community repo. Feel free to make additions to the page (and sign them so we can tell who wrote what), especially the final proposal.

Talk to you all then.

Allan

[1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Community_Repo_and_Pkgstats

A few points of rebuttal. Mostly too many unanswered questions. I will outline these below, but for those of you that are becoming tired of all this back and forth I can say this much: 1 - There are way too many unanswered questions about the methodology that basis for why we are being asked to consider voting on this. 2 - At NO POINT have these questions, although asked, been answered directly. Taken as a whole when answers are given they are mostly indirect at best. I am begining to believe that this is because those making these proposals do NOT have any these answers. 3 - Instead we are spending time go back and forth over the same material. This is stupid IMHO. 4 - There is absolutely no reason for this back and forth on simple questions like "show us your math. Please explain your assumptions. (Both basic methodology questions.) Why are we being asked to do this now ? Can you be more specific ? 5 - Since it has been declared that these are the first of many changes to improve our resource utilization, what else is being planned or considered ? 6 - Numbers are being thrown around which have NO basis unless compared against one another. But with possibly over 36,000 users of archlinux, maybe MANY more; How can a programs like "google-earth" only be getting 400 votes ? How can this possibly be based on the the number of users ? There are other such examples. NO ONE has explains what numbers like "3" and "20" votes can represent ? If numbers like "3 votes" can mean either 3 users or 350 users; How can we be throwing around any **real** meaning from ANY number such as "20 votes" ? 7 - I have not updated "google-earth" since WAY BEFORE the pkgstats were made available. How is it not premature to be using statistics generated by it on such programs ? i.e. Can those asking us to use these numbers properly "vet" them ? Can they explain how one month or even 4 moths is sufficient time to understand the output of programs like "pkgstats" ? 8 - If we have so many unanswered yet basic questions; Why is it so important to use them to "make changes" ? 9 - Voting can be faked. How is this being dealt with ? 10 - If we DO make these changes, we will be changing the system from one of TU discretion and creativity to where the AUR users decide the work load and output of a TU. The devs and the aur voters will be deciding what the TUs do. The devs will be able to make decisions, as they do now, as to what is included in their work without restrictions, and the AUR submitters will be deciding on their own what to submit. BUT the TUs will be UNIQUELY restricted however. How do the people proposing this plan to enlarge the TU pool when this position will have the least amount of creativity and discretion of those available ? 11 - Will we have less rather than more people wanting to become TUs because this will become the least creative endeavor for someone wanting to contribute ? 12 - If the TU pool becomes BOTH smaller and LESS creative, will this pool of potential devs represent less well trained candidates ? I could go on and on, because in the proceeding weeks, those answering these basic questions have not taken sufficient priority with them. Instead I am asked questions that seem specious to me in reply. This really is counterproductive. *** So here is the most basic question; Why should we be seriously considering ANY recommendation, when those who have been asked these and other questions have spent so little time and effort SIMPLY answering them ? The charts seem poorly thought out, and no where have the authors of such stuff given us the specifics of how they were made. SORRY, but this is just a waste of time if there is not full disclosure. And finally; I am asked below what were the reasons such previous proposals were either dismissed or voted down by the TUs. Here are some reasons. They are NOT all the reasons, and in fact many would consider these not as important as other reasons. Nonetheless here are some; 1 - No one wanted systems where the TUs had less discretion than a DEV or a AUR contributor. It was too much like being a "slave" to your work, and "work assigned by someone else". It was (IMHO CORRECTLY) felt that this was too much of an burden to load unto the TUs as a whole. Not all, but MANY TUs did not want this change from the fundamental system we had. 2 - We did NOT want to remove any creative decision making from the TUs. Some were packaging stuff that was truly unique and useful to sub-communities that do NOT vote but DO download these packages. We felt it ws short sided and unwise to elliminate this creativity. 3 - We could NOT predict what these changes would do to our current system, and the TUs were happy with the way things were. 4 - We were, frankly, scared that this very unique TU system (which is one of the three basic reasons Archlinux is unique in the world of linux distribtuions,) would morph into just another distribution, with nothing much unique to prove or account for it's existance. 5 - TUs then and now are the ones that WANT to contribute. We were scared that many TUs would, over a short time period, choose to leave after voting in such changes, AND the ones that remained would have a larger burden and be less motivated to stay with the program. 6 - TUs felt it was inappropriate to decide anything other than on the ability and safety of another TUs output. It was felt that things would become too much like a "popularity contest" and too little like a group of kind, polite, and most importantly diverse group working together instead of at odds. It was felt that being inclusive was exceptionally important. We wanted no contention. Bob F. On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:36 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

Well, given you don't wait the few hours to put this forward at the TU meeting, I won't wait to respond to you.

w9ya wrote:

...

Hi all;

Some quick comments/corrections to Allan's Wiki page;

- His first question/answer about the purpose of the Community Repo; <- The AUR was not in existence in ANY form for several years AFTER the introduction of TU **BINARY** repos. While Allan (and others) may truly believe that the community repo is designed strictly to be a place for popular AUR contributions there is NO historical basis for this belief. i.e. We the TU's, as WHOLE group, have *never* determined this to be a sole basis OR requirement for binary packaging. Nor, in the past when this has come up (and it has a few times), have we EVER decided to make such a decision, as it was considered to be a bad idea to do so for a variety of still pertinent reasons.

OK. So lets look at the revision of the AUR Truted User Guidelines from July 2005:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines&oldid=794

In the description of a TU: "He maintains popular packages". That is the oldest (and unchanged since then) definition of a TU we have to go by. For those of us that are historically unaware, can you outline your "still pertinent reasons". In all your previous emails saying similar things I saw no reason other that "it was never the way". Sure it wasn't the way in the start (as there was no AUR) but things change.

AS SUCH, Allan's premise is flawed as is everything else on the page is

...

based on this erroneous premise of purpose.

(BTW, I have been told such historical examinations are "regressive" and as such NOT "progressive". I will encourage you all to decide if such an understanding is "regressive" or really just a useful way to gain knowledge and understanding and prevent mistakes.)

- Allan goes on to discuss what a "popular" package is. There is absolutely no way to determine what 3, or 20, or what any number of votes truly represents for a variety or reasons. I have discussed just why there can be no correlation in a previous email. Prior to sending that email I asked for such a correlation and received none. I then wrote that email where I outline the flawed mathematics, I have yet to see a rebuttal. There is NO way to tabulate and correlate the votes as to representing even a percentage of users. Do NOT let Allan or anyone else tell you otherwise. It simply is NOT true at this time.

I gave a link to a plot on the wiki page showing the correlation between number of votes and usage from pkgstats for my package. The correlation is visibly high, with the exception of packages included as dependencies. As we have no better numbers available to us, and the two numbers we do have agree reasonable well, we might as well use what we have.

...

TO WIT; whether it is 3 votes (the original minimum suggested) or 20 votes; they are merely a number with NO MEANING. SO why should we place ANY **ARTIFICIAL** meaning to them ? AND why are we using them at all ?

- It is also worthy to note that in the course of a week or two since this minimum number was first proposed it has changed from a requirement of 3 votes to 20 votes. What will the number be next month ? Six months from now ?

The minimum of three votes is clearly flawed if you look at the pkgstats usage and compare the number of votes. In fact, I linked to another plot which clearly shows this. The number 20 was a guideline that was around when I first joined as a TU and if you look at the pkgstats results and try separating packages with more or less that 1% usage, the optimal number of votes arrives very near to 20 so I stuck with it.

...

Why should any TU even want to contribute new and interesting BINARIES when the number can change so quickly and by a small number of "leaders" deciding for him/her ? Why should ANY TU spend time *properly* vetting an AUR contribution through adoption only to have it removed at a future date because it no longer had the require number of votes ?

As I said in the wiki page, I was not proposing the enforcement of any removal based on these numbers. I only proposed guidelines for getting a package into the [community] repo.

...

FURTHER; when have we EVER let a small number of TUs make any decisions for the rest of the TUs ? IS it wise to change the successful TU system into merely a training ground for future DEVs and all of the TUs merely "junior" DEVs grinding out packages because they receive votes ? Where is the creativity in that ?

We have never let a small number of TUs decide. In fact, any change are always required to reach quorum and a percentage of the vote as given in the bylaws.

- Finally, but far from the least important consideration, is that we are

...

being asked to do this because of a lack of server resources. I would like to remind everyone that this proposal will only delay the day until this minimum number of votes is increased OR the servers will need to be upgraded. I for one would rather like to contribute some real hard cash and simply do the necessary infrastructure upgrades and NOT set such a precedence of paradigm changes in a very successful system. Changes that will be hard or virtually impossible to remove once they are adopted, more especially because they will NOT solve a resources problem for any useful length of time. Can ANYONE truthfully assert that these changes will alleviate ANY resource problems for any real length of time ? The only correct answer is no. And so the folks presenting the TUs with this decision have said as much in prior emails.

Resources are limited, no matter how much money you throw at a problem. Every extra package uses bandwidth and disk space for both us and our mirrors. And if you are only building for i686, it costs x86_64 TUs time to build these packages. We are talking about optimizing the use of our resources. Out of the ~2400 unique IP who submitted their package statistics, 97 packages in [community] are used by no-one. That cannot be optimal when plenty of packages in unsupported are having usages between 1 and 5%.

****** Oh yeah, DO NOT FORGET that there are no alternative proposals to

...

remedy the server problems because they have NOT been outlined in enough detail to determine if this is the best or even a good proposal to alleviate these vaguely declared problems. ******** i.e. WHAT problems, or WHAT nature, and WHY are they NOW a problem ?

It is an optimal use of limited resources issue. Find a way to convince me (and others) that serving packages out that from all indications no-one or very few people use is optimal.

Thanks for reading this far. I hope every TU really asks themselves

...

whether this has been truly well thought out or not. Ask the tough questions. Seek an understanding of just how this will help and whether it is truly of merit or merely the beginning of other changes that will result in a paradigm shift in our VERY successful and truly unique TU/AUR system.

Which is why we are having a meeting. So we can discuss the relative merits/demerits of the proposal.

Very best regards;

...

Bob Finch THE **FIRST* TU.

Who still top posts....

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Allan McRae

...

allan@archlinux.org>> wrote:

The first TU meeting in a long time (over a year!) is on at 9.00pm GMT, Sunday 30 November. Afternoon US time, early Monday morning for me... we will keep a log for those who can't make it then. Anybody needing the TU channel key, send me an email.

I have made a page[1] with what will be the main discussion topic and what I propose to improve the community repo. Feel free to make additions to the page (and sign them so we can tell who wrote what), especially the final proposal.

Talk to you all then.

Allan

[1]

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Community_Repo_and_Pkgstats

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 02:26:28PM -0500, Loui Chang wrote:

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:39:44AM -0700, w9ya wrote:

...

A few points of rebuttal. Mostly too many unanswered questions.

I will outline these below, but for those of you that are becoming tired of all this back and forth I can say this much:

Bob, first of all please stop posting. If you're unable to properly quote and address proper portions of someone's proposal then you're not helping the discussion at all. It seems you're just trying to disorient and befuddle the debate.

Oops sorry. I meant please stop -top- posting. Apologies.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:56 PM, w9ya wrote:

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Loui Chang wrote:

...

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:39:44AM -0700, w9ya wrote:

...

A few points of rebuttal. Mostly too many unanswered questions.

I will outline these below, but for those of you that are becoming tired of all this back and forth I can say this much:

Bob, first of all please stop posting. If you're unable to properly quote and address proper portions of someone's proposal then you're not helping the discussion at all. It seems you're just trying to disorient and befuddle the debate.

Here i will middle post as you did. (Sometimes other forms of posting can make sense btw. So PLEASE do not put me onthe defensive.)

If I am not mistaken the general idea is to follow the natural flow of text, which is top to bottom. Middle posting to comment a specific quote is fine because it still preserves the flow of conversation when there are multiple, nested quotes. If you top post this flow is broken, and it becomes more difficult to follow a conversation.

...

...

4 - There is absolutely no reason for this back and forth on simple questions like "show us your math. Please explain your assumptions. (Both basic methodology questions.) Why are we being asked to do this now ? Can you be more specific ?

There is some data that Daenyth and I were collecting to see how effective some of the proposed changes would be.

[1] http://omploader.org/veDEy

I cannot even begin to understand what this list of numbers means. Again, without simple and SPECFIC understandings, this is not of any value. AND it is important with statistics to not only understand (label) the collums you produce, but also what assumptions AND methodology were taken in their compilation.

So far NO ONE has offered this up, so the numebrs have no USEFUl meaning.

This you blew out of proportion. I'm not even a TU, and by simply glancing at it I can tell that it means: [# of votes] [size of binary in kb] [name of package] This becomes very clear if you look at the very bottom of the page. I do agree that having more detailed reports would be nice, but that can take a lot of time. I would say that the information Daenyth and Louipc collected is good enough, and certainly better than nothing.

Again I ask Why are we voting on numbers that onlyh one person has any remote understanding of ?

...

http://omploader.org/veDEy

...

5 - Since it has been declared that these are the first of many changes to improve our resource utilization, what else is being planned or considered ?

If you've been following the news, there have been server upgrades. I've also made a few changes in the community scripts that help slightly and I plan to do even more. The last part of a total solution would be to implement a minimum vote requirement, or suggestion. If not that, then some way to minimise the number of packages that are largely unused.

Yes and I am happy that this has been taking place. I have offered money and no one has seen fit to take it as my part towards a solution for resource issues.

But I ask yet again; How is removing 100 or so binary packages that you all are saying no one uses going to change anything for morew than a few weeks ?

How are these "unused packages" representing a drain on resources ?

How are releasing 2 % of storage space going to seriously and for the long term going to represent anything of value ?

I can go on and on, as these questions are still not answered and are basic. It is quite simple to come up with them.

You guys have two separate problems. 1) The server is running low on resources. 2) The process of adding binary packages into the repository is not optimal. The operative word is "separate." Problem #2 has a direct impact on Problem #1, but they are still separate issues. Both of them needs to be addressed.

...

...

9 - Voting can be faked. How is this being dealt with ?

Pkgstats can help verify the votes.

Maybe, but not until they have been in place, **vetted**, and have been running for MANY MANY months.

You're never going to get a perfect system. Voting is flawed, but so is pkgstats. Just use both. Together they can paint a more accurate picture instead of relying on just one. If you can think of another way to measure package use, throw that in the equation too. -- Ryan Coyner

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 18:02, Allan McRae wrote:

Hey all,

Well the meeting went ahead. Not a great turn out....

Here is the log: http://dev.archlinux.org/~allan/tu-meeting-2008-11-29.txt

Allan Sorry I couldn't be there. I _really_ thought that the email said it was on Sunday, not today. Wish I had made it...

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Aaron Schaefer wrote:

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

Sorry I couldn't be there. I _really_ thought that the email said it was on Sunday, not today. Wish I had made it...

I thought it was Sunday too...had made arrangements so I could be there even at work. Yarrr, I'm not real thrilled with the discussion as I don't think the real issues were discussed, but I suppose nothing is final at this point.

-- Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer

Hi, I'm another victim of a bad read. I really thought it was on Sunday too. I'm very upset because of that. I'll read the log and post my comments after. Really sorry for my mistake. -- Kessia Pinheiro Student at Computer Science - UFBa Trainee with ProCaTI founds - DiSup/CPD - UFBa Arch Linux Trusted User Linux Counter User #389695 - [http://counter.li.org] http://even.archlinux-br.org --- X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10 24 a 27 de junho de 2009 PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil

On 11/30/08, Timm Preetz wrote:

On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 23:37 -0300, Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote:

...

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Aaron Schaefer wrote:

...

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

Sorry I couldn't be there. I _really_ thought that the email said it was on Sunday, not today. Wish I had made it...

I thought it was Sunday too...had made arrangements so I could be there even at work. Yarrr, I'm not real thrilled with the discussion as I don't think the real issues were discussed, but I suppose nothing is final at this point.

-- Aaron "ElasticDog" Schaefer

Hi,

I'm another victim of a bad read. I really thought it was on Sunday too. I'm very upset because of that. I'll read the log and post my comments after. Really sorry for my mistake.

Maybe it's a little bit late, but why not meet again tonight?

I also thought we agreed on meeting on Sunday... guess I will joint the channel anyway this evening and see who else shows up... Ronald

Hi all, Logs of the TU meetings (two due to day mixups....): http://dev.archlinux.org/~allan/tu-meeting-2008-11-29.txt http://dev.archlinux.org/~allan/tu-meeting-2008-11-30.txt Allan's really brief summary: - There was no agreement what the problem was or even if there is a problem - There was no agreement for a solution to the "problem". - bardo drunk too much wine and was having difficulty spelling. A bit more detailed summary: - There was some agreement that there appears to be a lot of packages with low usage in [community] - There was lots of disagreement about the validity various popularity measures (pkgstats, AUR votes). - No better method for assessing popularity was proposed - Restricting entry to [community] based on "popular usage" was discussed - A few do not like the idea of restricting TUs packages - The definitions of "popular" are hotly debated - A proposal for new rules for packages entering [community] will be posted to the aur-general list for more discussion - A separate proposal about removing low usage packages from [community] will be made at a later date. - It was proposed to add a safe flag on TUs packages in the AUR to encourage TUs to leave packages out of community while still being marked in a way as they are known to be good PKGBUILDs - Improving the community backend to reduce server load is being discussed. Allan

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

- bardo drunk too much wine and was having difficulty spelling.

You could have left out this point ;-) But you know... wine is for intellectuals... maybe.

A bit more detailed summary: - There was some agreement that there appears to be a lot of packages with low usage in [community] - There was lots of disagreement about the validity various popularity measures (pkgstats, AUR votes). - No better method for assessing popularity was proposed - Restricting entry to [community] based on "popular usage" was discussed - A few do not like the idea of restricting TUs packages - The definitions of "popular" are hotly debated - A proposal for new rules for packages entering [community] will be posted to the aur-general list for more discussion - A separate proposal about removing low usage packages from [community] will be made at a later date.

All the previous points can be summarized in few words: "we agree that we disagree".

- It was proposed to add a safe flag on TUs packages in the AUR to encourage TUs to leave packages out of community while still being marked in a way as they are known to be good PKGBUILDs

I missed this part... luckily. Safe flags were happily killed with a few months ago. If you mean to add them to [community] packages only, then it doesn't make sense to me: to make a TU you don't just need the User, you also need the Trust. Either you don't T the U from the beginning (and s/he doesn't get elected) or you T, and then you don't need to flag anything. If someone notices an anomaly in a TU's PKGBUILD quality, it should readily be reported to the list to take action.

- Improving the community backend to reduce server load is being discussed.

This is a very important point, IMHO, which we need to discuss with the AUR2 guys. In fact I think we could, as we say in Italian, "catch two pigeons with one broad bean" :) and plan the backend changes to include the move to SVN. Personally, I'd like to see an independent RCS layer so that we won't see this situation again when we need to move to $ZOMGCOOLRCS. Corrado

[1] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Community_Repo_and_Pkgstats

Louipc and I and a few others were also working on http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community. Make sure to look also at the talk page.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:

I can't say for 22nd and 29th, but I can come on IRC on 15th November from 1100 UTC to 1730 UTC. On Sundays, anytime from 0330 UTC to 1730 UTC would be fine, except for 0730 to 0830 UTC when I'll be having lunch :)

-- Abhishek Dasgupta

Abhishek please fill the Wiki page [0] [0] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Meeting -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Linux Counter: #359909 Arch Linux Trusted User

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 03:44:50PM -0300, Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote:

This weekend I'll move to another apartament. In next, I can't say if I'll have internet access yet (I hope so). So, better to me is 29th november, any time you like...

PS: I'll be a little away in next 2 weeks because the changes. So, online only in my work (time.

...

Abhishek please fill the Wiki page [0]

[0] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TU_Meeting

Please add yourself to the wiki mentioned above. Thanks!