[aur-general] Someone hug sergej
sergej I'm sorry for trying to vote you out. It was a pretty big dick move on my part. I think you've shown yourself to be perfectly capable of maintaining all these packages and like other people have said although it's impossible for you to put complete care into each package you're very good at fixing stuff when it's reported. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. :') -- Callan Barrett
2008/12/3 Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com>:
sergej I'm sorry for trying to vote you out. It was a pretty big dick move on my part.
I think you've shown yourself to be perfectly capable of maintaining all these packages and like other people have said although it's impossible for you to put complete care into each package you're very good at fixing stuff when it's reported. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. :') I'm totally with Callan.
Sergej is a excellent TU. Sergej, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK! -- Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino Arch Linux Trusted User Linux User: #430842
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
sergej I'm sorry for trying to vote you out. It was a pretty big dick move on my part.
I think you've shown yourself to be perfectly capable of maintaining all these packages and like other people have said although it's impossible for you to put complete care into each package you're very good at fixing stuff when it's reported. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. :')
HA! Thats very easier to say since many of the packages having 0% usage originally comes from you :P Seriously now, anyone who disrespects other people's work is an ungreateful son of a bitch. And Sergej has put a lot of work on packaging, no doubt. But that doesnt change anything. All facts remain. Maintaining hundreds of hardly used packages as binary while at the same time there are 300 scripts in AUR with more than 40 votes waiting to be adopted is not appropriate and a big problem. Moreover if you fail to admit that there is a problem. Archlinux has grown and continues doing so. And this has been a problem for far too long that needed to be solved at some point. In fact thats what [community] has always been about right? Having popular packages from unsupported? note: I wonder if the GPL commpliance issue involves [community] too. That would be a really interesting task to watch being achieved. As phrakture in one of his earlier emails, the most important IMO problem is there is not frequent commnication between the members of the TU group. As it happens for example with the developers. eg. Even TUs said on the thread i started on the arch-general mailing list that Sergej is a package making machine. And people have been saying that for as long as i can remember. He rarely paricipates on anything community related. Before the rules on voting, he never really did. Im not saying he should be available all day on the IRC, forum, and ML but he could be a bit more active especially on TU related stuff. Especially since he maintains lots of packages. And i only used Sergej as an example here. He probably is not the only one. Greg
Greg; I assume you are not aware that anyone can apply and become a TU. Because of that, if anyone thinks something needs to be done that remains undone, then the answer is to simply ask to become a TU. Within a short time, if you are ready with some few examples of your work, you will become one. We have only turned down one applicant and that was for lying to us. MORE TO THE POINT; When the aurvotes was added, we all knew that it could not represent even one user correctly. Heck I have programs that dozens of folks use that show NO VOTES, and they are using them by downloading them from the community repo directly. At the time the aurvotes were added we were promised that it would **NEVER be mentioned that a TU was remiss by not adding a aur entry that had some votes. Somehow over the course of a couple of years we are now using a system of statistics that is decidedly in error, with over two magnitudes of extremes and no way to determine the shape of the curve (and the means). i.e. We have NO idea of even what ZERO votes means. It boggles the mind. Very best regards; Bob Finch On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
sergej I'm sorry for trying to vote you out. It was a pretty big dick move on my part.
I think you've shown yourself to be perfectly capable of maintaining all these packages and like other people have said although it's impossible for you to put complete care into each package you're very good at fixing stuff when it's reported. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. :')
HA! Thats very easier to say since many of the packages having 0% usage originally comes from you :P
Seriously now, anyone who disrespects other people's work is an ungreateful son of a bitch. And Sergej has put a lot of work on packaging, no doubt. But that doesnt change anything. All facts remain. Maintaining hundreds of hardly used packages as binary while at the same time there are 300 scripts in AUR with more than 40 votes waiting to be adopted is not appropriate and a big problem. Moreover if you fail to admit that there is a problem. Archlinux has grown and continues doing so. And this has been a problem for far too long that needed to be solved at some point. In fact thats what [community] has always been about right? Having popular packages from unsupported? note: I wonder if the GPL commpliance issue involves [community] too. That would be a really interesting task to watch being achieved.
As phrakture in one of his earlier emails, the most important IMO problem is there is not frequent commnication between the members of the TU group. As it happens for example with the developers. eg. Even TUs said on the thread i started on the arch-general mailing list that Sergej is a package making machine. And people have been saying that for as long as i can remember. He rarely paricipates on anything community related. Before the rules on voting, he never really did. Im not saying he should be available all day on the IRC, forum, and ML but he could be a bit more active especially on TU related stuff. Especially since he maintains lots of packages. And i only used Sergej as an example here. He probably is not the only one.
Greg
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:59 AM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
Greg;
I assume you are not aware that anyone can apply and become a TU. Because of that, if anyone thinks something needs to be done that remains undone, then the answer is to simply ask to become a TU. Within a short time, if you are ready with some few examples of your work, you will become one. We have only turned down one applicant and that was for lying to us.
Hi bfinch, Let me get some things straight. If you dont remember, since i had told you about it the last time we chated on the MLs I havent used [community] in more than a year. I only use 3 packages from unsupported, and theyre all maintained by me. In case anyone was wondering why i biitch there arent more of those popular packages in community, well i couldnt care less. Its the common good im interesting in not my own. If not all [extra] and mainly xorg doesnt to [community] thats not gonna change easy. I dont believe in the TU system. IMO Its broken by design. Maybe it worked in the past. The reason to that is mosly that its not Official. I surely admit that AUR is one of Archlinux's strongest points but the scricts are generally of low quality and MAINLY in the binary reposisitory. I am not really insterested in that part of Archlinux. Its only the core that matters to me. Thats what im building my workstation on. If i find out anything wrong with ay aspect i try to fix it. I have said so in he past that if the way the community repository works doesnt change then Archlinux needs to be more souce based. I dont need a repository like that and IMO neither does Archlinux. Being a TU is not the only way to help Archlinux, and i try to help out as much as i can in other ways. Im not saying i am not making mistakes.
MORE TO THE POINT; When the aurvotes was added, we all knew that it could not represent even one user correctly. Heck I have programs that dozens of folks use that show NO VOTES, and they are using them by downloading them from the community repo directly. At the time the aurvotes were added we were promised that it would **NEVER be mentioned that a TU was remiss by not adding a aur entry that had some votes. Somehow over the course of a couple of years we are now using a system of statistics that is decidedly in error, with over two magnitudes of extremes and no way to determine the shape of the curve (and the means). i.e. We have NO idea of even what ZERO votes means.
It boggles the mind.
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
Can i ask you something else? I expect to get an answer this time though. I am aware of a fact probably other people and probably some TUs arent aware of either. I dont know when exactly you became a TU, or how things worked back then. Your experience is welcome but werent you away from Archlinux for a couple of years? 2006-2008 from what i can estimate. How can you so conviniently talk about how are things are done? I think that for some reason you assume that in the 2 years you were away nothing changed. Which i guess i wrong. And you have proven that with abusing the repository. Sure freedom is great. So are you long philosophical emails. But youre playing in someone elses playground with their toys. Thats exactly where it shows the development module is TOTALLY broken. You, and IMO Sergej, at the very least are abusing the power you were given. But if phrakture who is in charge of the distro ATM tells you something you tell him to STFU cause we are TUs not developers and we are free to do whatever we want on our special place and he has no right to interfere. Well since you abused the hospitality you dont deserve such priviledges IMO. I will say it one last time. Either official [community] repository with some kind of moderation OFC, or not at all. And i dont really care how things were done when Archlinux had 10 times less users than it does now in 2003. Only how they should be done now. And the developers should have a saying in this. That would sum up my thoughts.
Okay Greg a few easy questions I am happy to answer for you; - Um, the freedom of the AUR is because of the freedom in the entire TU system (aur is a part of it). If you remove some freedom from one, then you risk the same freedom in the other. That *IS* human nature and the way things tend to work. So I wil ask you to please explain how making the community repo "more official" will help you ? Please be specific as I am just not following you at the moment. I do not see what is broken. - I am not unhappy with ANYONE's commitment or how much they are getting done. But I do take seriously some of the outbursts about who is doing what AND making the TUs more responsive to the aurvotes and so forth. NO ONE should have to listen to such things when it is so simple to become a TU and spend time on a packaging solution. I hope you understand that I do not expect you or anyone to do ANYTHING but use archlinux and interact when you have a problem of some sort. So, yeah I am fine with you. And you have not called me names and even more ugly things. IN FACT, if someone like you wrote me privately and asked me to consider helping them with THEIR PKGBUILD I have been known to do so. Arch_assistant is one such PKGBUILD I have helped people with. Having a lot of TUs around can be very helpful for this kind of thing. Will making the TU system more "official" (and I *assume* you mean more like the discussions and so forth the devs do concerning what goes into their repos) help or hurt those seeking help with their PKGBUILDS and seeking attention in getting their PKGBUILDs into the repo ? Will more or less people become Tus. Has anyone proposing these changes even bothered to ask these questions publicly ? And yes the likely answers DO matter. Even for the things you are concerned about. I decided to pick up the google-earth one because it had become a problem. I had some issues getting it to install and work here. So I took it over, politely btw when those who's work it was were NOT willing (or able ?) to continue with it on their own. (In any event I asked and through the course of my asking it was turned over to me.) THE POINT ? Lately I have been spending my time fighting this proposal. And having to spend time away from PKGBUILDs and attending to new matters like asking permission to add things to the repo will mean less of my time for the real work. - Yes users are ALWAYS VERY IMPORTANT, including the ones that do NOT vote. The problem is that a user has to understand enough about archlinux to get ahold of aurvotes and yaourt and manage to install them, and we forget how hard this process can be compared to simply installing it and using the binary repos. The ham radio community seeks solutions to problems adn quite frankly arch is a good solution, but asking them to vote and so forth is NOT a good solution to seeing their use represented as it is quite a bit of additional work to just vote on something. Heck most of the users of arch are not even registered users, let alone voters. - I have been a steady user of arch linux since it's inception. If Judd V. has stopped using it, I am now the longest continuous user of it I know of. I have never stopped. As I mentioned earlier, TUs are not restricted to perform ANY output and are allowed to "go on hiatus". I had some medical issues that prevented me from a more active participation during the time period you mention. I am happy to be alive and able to walk now as well as contribute as I can.. - As far as the developers having a say in this. Heck they can say the deal is off and it is time to kill the TU experiment. I am actually o.k. with that, as it would be intellectually honest. Instead we are asking for the dope on what is wrong and in the past two days have found out it was NOT the immediate need of a resources problem we were told it was. In fact we found out essentially the opposite. No problems there. We are also being told about future fixes in store with NO indication of what they might be and what they are. I am concerned because I understand human nature. I make my living predicting short and long term effects of policy decisions. And I make a **good** living at it. And this failure to disclose what the devs are contemplating and telling us will be in our future is sad. More especially since the TU system is NOT theirs to do so with. If it was the rest of the distro, I would not complain about these last few weeks because it would not be my place to complain about their repo. I hope you understand better now. And I will let you in on a small secret. Since it appears that (some of) the devs are asking the TUs to make this decision, and without any demonstrated problem or any demonstrated statistics to back up this so-called need; I will not likely spend any more time worrying about what happens. I should probably stay and fight this silliness, but in the end if the devs really want this unique TU experiment to become their toy, I will gladly let them have it. I will simply quit worrying about something that they will destroy it the process of "making it more official". And yes, the prime movers in this proposal ARE the devs. You allude to that, and you are right. Regards; Bob Finch On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Grigorios Bouzakis <grbzks@gmail.com>wrote:
Greg;
I assume you are not aware that anyone can apply and become a TU. Because of that, if anyone thinks something needs to be done that remains undone,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:59 AM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote: then
the answer is to simply ask to become a TU. Within a short time, if you are ready with some few examples of your work, you will become one. We have only turned down one applicant and that was for lying to us.
Hi bfinch, Let me get some things straight. If you dont remember, since i had told you about it the last time we chated on the MLs I havent used [community] in more than a year. I only use 3 packages from unsupported, and theyre all maintained by me. In case anyone was wondering why i biitch there arent more of those popular packages in community, well i couldnt care less. Its the common good im interesting in not my own. If not all [extra] and mainly xorg doesnt to [community] thats not gonna change easy. I dont believe in the TU system. IMO Its broken by design. Maybe it worked in the past. The reason to that is mosly that its not Official. I surely admit that AUR is one of Archlinux's strongest points but the scricts are generally of low quality and MAINLY in the binary reposisitory. I am not really insterested in that part of Archlinux. Its only the core that matters to me. Thats what im building my workstation on. If i find out anything wrong with ay aspect i try to fix it. I have said so in he past that if the way the community repository works doesnt change then Archlinux needs to be more souce based. I dont need a repository like that and IMO neither does Archlinux. Being a TU is not the only way to help Archlinux, and i try to help out as much as i can in other ways. Im not saying i am not making mistakes.
MORE TO THE POINT; When the aurvotes was added, we all knew that it could not represent even one user correctly. Heck I have programs that dozens of folks use that show NO VOTES, and they are using them by downloading them from the community repo directly. At the time the aurvotes were added we were promised that it would **NEVER be mentioned that a TU was remiss by not adding a aur entry that had some votes. Somehow over the course of a couple of years we are now using a system of statistics that is decidedly in error, with over two magnitudes of extremes and no way to determine the shape of the curve (and the means). i.e. We have NO idea of even what ZERO votes means.
It boggles the mind.
Very best regards;
Bob Finch
Can i ask you something else? I expect to get an answer this time though. I am aware of a fact probably other people and probably some TUs arent aware of either. I dont know when exactly you became a TU, or how things worked back then. Your experience is welcome but werent you away from Archlinux for a couple of years? 2006-2008 from what i can estimate. How can you so conviniently talk about how are things are done? I think that for some reason you assume that in the 2 years you were away nothing changed. Which i guess i wrong. And you have proven that with abusing the repository. Sure freedom is great. So are you long philosophical emails. But youre playing in someone elses playground with their toys. Thats exactly where it shows the development module is TOTALLY broken. You, and IMO Sergej, at the very least are abusing the power you were given. But if phrakture who is in charge of the distro ATM tells you something you tell him to STFU cause we are TUs not developers and we are free to do whatever we want on our special place and he has no right to interfere. Well since you abused the hospitality you dont deserve such priviledges IMO. I will say it one last time. Either official [community] repository with some kind of moderation OFC, or not at all. And i dont really care how things were done when Archlinux had 10 times less users than it does now in 2003. Only how they should be done now. And the developers should have a saying in this.
That would sum up my thoughts.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:31 AM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
Okay Greg a few easy questions I am happy to answer for you;
- Um, the freedom of the AUR is because of the freedom in the entire TU system (aur is a part of it). If you remove some freedom from one, then you risk the same freedom in the other. That *IS* human nature and the way things tend to work. So I wil ask you to please explain how making the community repo "more official" will help you ? Please be specific as I am just not following you at the moment. I do not see what is broken.
- I am not unhappy with ANYONE's commitment or how much they are getting done. But I do take seriously some of the outbursts about who is doing what AND making the TUs more responsive to the aurvotes and so forth. NO ONE should have to listen to such things when it is so simple to become a TU and spend time on a packaging solution. I hope you understand that I do not expect you or anyone to do ANYTHING but use archlinux and interact when you have a problem of some sort. So, yeah I am fine with you. And you have not called me names and even more ugly things.
From what i can see from your packages, leaving out google-earth and
Freedom. You have the freedom to do anything want and you choose to help only yourself from what i can see. And please dont take all i say personally. I am only judging people's actions and how i think they reflect and affect others. To the majority to be a bit more specific. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?O=0&L=0&C=0&K=bfinch&SeB=m&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go the ones you are particularly interested i cannot say you actually maintain any of them. eg. http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=15103 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=2632 http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=3117 and these are the ones that are supposed to be the more poular ones although you dont like the voting system. Such low quality scripts/packages dont exist in any official repository. How do you expect others to respect your right to freedom when you act this way? If you were more fair with how you dealt with the power you have in your hands noone would complain. At least not so loud. The voting system is far from perfect, it sucks big time really if you ask me. I estimate around half of the people who voted on packages dont use Archlinux anymore. and you can also tell that from your own packages to which i posted the links above. I dont think anyone really uses them anymore. But pkgstats is by far better. Maybe it should be included to the installer like it happens in Debian, and maybe its more appropriate for a relatively small distribution like Archlinux. But these are the only kind of measures that exist. If you can think of a better one, even the idea on its own would value something.
- Yes users are ALWAYS VERY IMPORTANT, including the ones that do NOT vote. The problem is that a user has to understand enough about archlinux to get ahold of aurvotes and yaourt and manage to install them, and we forget how hard this process can be compared to simply installing it and using the binary repos. The ham radio community seeks solutions to problems adn quite frankly arch is a good solution, but asking them to vote and so forth is NOT a good solution to seeing their use represented as it is quite a bit of additional work to just vote on something. Heck most of the users of arch are not even registered users, let alone voters.
IMO not ALL users are important. The ones who take part to NOTHING Archlinux related are worth less than the ones who do. There are exceptions but this is a general rule. What i really dont get i why cant you host those packages elsewhere and still use the Archlinux repos for everything else. An unofficial repository like you maintained before the AUR thing started. In fact, what got AUR started to be exact. Why do you need to host those packages in [community]? I have a wild guess but i dont want to offend you so i will keep it to myself. :)
- As far as the developers having a say in this. Heck they can say the deal is off and it is time to kill the TU experiment. I am actually o.k. with that, as it would be intellectually honest. Instead we are asking for the dope on what is wrong and in the past two days have found out it was NOT the immediate need of a resources problem we were told it was. In fact we found out essentially the opposite. No problems there. We are also being told about future fixes in store with NO indication of what they might be and what they are. I am concerned because I understand human nature. I make my living predicting short and long term effects of policy decisions. And I make a **good** living at it. And this failure to disclose what the devs are contemplating and telling us will be in our future is sad. More especially since the TU system is NOT theirs to do so with. If it was the rest of the distro, I would not complain about these last few weeks because it would not be my place to complain about their repo.
And yes, the prime movers in this proposal ARE the devs. You allude to that, and you are right.
Dont you think its logical they react that way? The distribution is growing, and its growing fast. And, the way i see it, there needs to be quality among with the quantity which is a goal more or less already achieved. You are making their efforts seem not as worth while as they should. I dont think any of the developers wants to kill "the TU experiment". Hell, most of them where TUs before becoming developers. some still are. They just want the TU's to function as well as possible, after a model that has proven to be more successful than the anarchy model that currently runs on [community]. Sadly, you (the TU's) have proven that you are not capable of getting the best results from the resources you got. What i also dont get is how you fail to see the problem. Cause when there are even half as many packages in unsupported everyone agrees they are more used than far too many packages in community, there is problem. The repository doesnt serve its purpose. & there need to be some rules. Sad but true. & also what you would expect if you take into consideration of what Archlinux stands for today and how big it is. I dont think you can blame the developers for anything other than stealing the best of your resources. But thats the way the Archlinux develop model works. If they wanted to "kill" you they could just say, We cant host community anymore, go find some other playground and stuff. But the question is: are you capable of doing that? And moreover without the developers interefering? Its up to you to prove them wrong... Greg
Grigorios Bouzakis wrote:
<tl:dr>
This is becoming a direct attack on Bob here. I could probably go through anyones packages in [community] and find something that could be improved (except mine - because I am perfect.... ). But it is not productive in anyway. I did not bother reading much beyond that. Anyway, if people are going to rant on a different topic than that in the subject line, change it to something more appropriate. Thanks, Allan
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 1:46 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Anyway, if people are going to rant on a different topic than that in the subject line, change it to something more appropriate.
Agreed. I don't want to have to fiddle with mailman settings and figure out how to block or moderate things. Mailman is a pain, and messing with it makes me cranky
I inherited two of the ones you list. And I have not (yet) changed them. Is there a problem with them in some way that you feel they are low quality ? Could you be specific ? The third one has nothing wrong with it as it works. i.e. The jbidwatcher one I did a little fixing on. IS there a problem with it too ? It is quite easy to saythe things you have said, but you offer me no objective reason for what you are saying. As for the rest of you have to say, it is hard for me to follow you. I gave two examples of where I have helped out on PKGBUILDs that are not mine. Yet you say I am not helping. (And you cut the quote form me off before those paragraphs, so it appears that I am not helping out.) I ALSO do not understand you when you say "..you (the TU's) have proven that you are not capable of getting the best results from the resources you got." How can that be so ? What you go on to say I do not understand. If it is not being used right because there are packages YOU wish to see placed in it, then that means we need more TUs. I am left to assume that you are willing to become a TU and help with the effort. If not, then the rest of what you say becomes merely a rant. And NO the devs should have NO SAY in what is going on. If they want to adopt PKGBUILDs from the aur they can on their own. Nothing stopping them from doing so. The TU system was NOT designed, on purpose btw, to mimic what they do. As an interesting point; There was discussion of whether it was smart to allow a dev. to also be a TU. Devs, at that time did not seem to care, but some TUs thought it unwise. Frankly I saw no problem with that at the time. I may have been VERY wrong. Regards; Bob Finch P.S.... to save some time, please just write to me privately with what your problems with those three packages you mentioned are. I will politely try to find time in the next few days to review, in detail, your concerns. There is little to no reason for you to have to that publicly. In fact I always try to do such critiques privately. And I do help out with that often.
They just want the TU's to function as well as possible, after a model that has proven to be more successful than the anarchy model that currently runs on [community].
this is the third or fourth time i've seen "anarchy" abused so casually in this discussion. "anarchy" != disorder, or even lack of order/organization. for dog's sake, do a little homework before you use it pejoratively again. try this http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm site or this http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html one. there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms of non-hierarchical organization. one of the keys to success is effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. one of the most effective is formal consensus. "consensus" is another concept i see abused without much thought here. what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there. check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making and http://www.consensus.net/ . i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty disappointed if the authority to determine who participates and how was handed to a smaller, less-accountable elite. so, to sum up, work together, quit trying to "win," and circle that a, motherf**kers! -kludge
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, kludge <drkludge@rat-patrol.org> wrote:
i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty disappointed if the authority to determine who participates and how was handed to a smaller, less-accountable elite.
To be clear, the debat has nothing to do with the AUR, only the community repo which is run by the TUs, who are already a "smaller, less-accountable elite"
On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 01:09:09 -0000, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM, kludge <drkludge@rat-patrol.org> wrote:
i may not be the most active participant here, but i deeply value the open and community-run nature of the aur-end of arch. i'd be pretty disappointed if the authority to determine who participates and how was handed to a smaller, less-accountable elite.
To be clear, the debat has nothing to do with the AUR, only the community repo which is run by the TUs, who are already a "smaller, less-accountable elite"
Although this email is in response to a comment posted by Aaron Griffin, it is intended for all those who appear to have a problem with the current system which, from what I have gathered in the few days I have beena part of this list, is the presence of supposedly unpopular packages in the [community] repository. Now, I only discovered Arch Linux a few months ago, and due to my busy schedule at the moment, will not be able to sit down with it and build a fully function system with which I can replace Ubuntu on each machine I use, so am rather unfamiliar with this system of 'voting' for my favourite packages, but can say that I have not encountered such a system with Ubuntu while using apt-get, and have yet to encounter it during my perusal of the pacman man page, which leads me to believe that such a system would be web based. Now this to me is a rather inefficent system and, in my opinion anyway, completely defeats the purpose of downloading and installing package using a package manager from with a terminal session. Now I have not voted for any packages after downloading them, however the key term here is "AFTER DOWNLOADING THEM". I still use them, but that isn't reflected in the established system. Now if there exists a system for monitoring the number of downlaods using pacman, then I apologise for wasting peoples time with my ignorance. If, however, such a system does not exist, then the current voting statistics cannot, under any circumstances, be used to judge the suitability of a package to remain within a certain repository. To do so would undermine the community oriented nature of [community], and also the key principles of open-source, where a minority of users have decided that certain packages should be moved/replaced/deleted/whatever, even though said packages may in fact be widely used. If resources are an issue, as has been mentioned, then instead of puching for the removal of these packages, shouldn't you be pushing for the expansion of the server's disk space instead, or whatever resource is currently at a premium. The whole point of an open-source operating system is that ANYONE can freely distribute software under the GNU license agreement for the OS in question, even if they are the only person using that package. Is was my understanding that anyone could apply to become a TU, and that there has only ever been a single application rejected in the past due to the dishonesty of the applicant, so I don't really see how the TUs can be classed as some sort of ruling class: On Wed 03 Dec 2008 04:59:04 AM GMT, "w9ya" <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
I assume you are not aware that anyone can apply and become a TU. Because of that, if anyone thinks something needs to be done that
remains undone, then the answer is to simply ask to become a TU. Within a short time, if you are ready with some few examples of your >work, you will become one. We have only turned down one applicant and that was for lying to us.
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:15:06 AM GMT, "w9ya" <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
I ALSO do not understand you when you say "..you (the TU's) have proven that you are not capable of getting the best results from the >resources you got." How can that be so ? What you go on to say I do not understand. If it is not being used right because there are >packages YOU wish to see placed in it, then that means we need more TUs. I am left to assume that you are willing to become a TU and help >with the effort. If not, then the rest of what you say becomes merely a rant.
If I'm not mistaken, that sounds like an invitation for those who have a problem with the current system to step up and do something about it. So why all the fuss? [community] is not [core] or [extra], and should not be treated as such (now if I'm talking rubbush here, then by all means, please correct me). These two are the official repositories, so to speak. It is upon these repositories that Arch is based, and so they should reflect the principles of minimilism and simplicity the so define the system. [community] is slightly different, in that anyone can add software to it without having to be an official member of the development team, so it is natural that there are going to be more packages there than in the other two, and allowances should be made for this. Now this is simply the way I personally am viewing the situation, and may not necessarily be shared by others, but it is nonetheless my opinion as an Arch user and I feel that, just like the supposedly unused packages, it should be shared with anyone who is interested in hearing it. Chris
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:02:30PM -0600, kludge wrote:
there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms of non-hierarchical organization. one of the keys to success is effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. one of the most effective is formal consensus. "consensus" is another concept i see abused without much thought here.
what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.
One huge problem is that these ideas were being attacked from the outset. There were few opportunities for compromise or even a half civilised discussion. I'm not sure what you're implying here. My only agenda is to make community a better repository that makes use of its resources efficiently. 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.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:02:30PM -0600, kludge wrote:
there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms of non-hierarchical organization. one of the keys to success is effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. one of the most effective is formal consensus. "consensus" is another concept i see abused without much thought here.
what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.
One huge problem is that these ideas were being attacked from the outset. There were few opportunities for compromise or even a half civilised discussion.
The proponents of this idea/proposal were NOT up front with those whose votes they sought. We asked why there was a need for such a radical change in the way we were doing things and were told there was a resource problem. We asked for details about this for almost three weeks. Finally we got our answer, but NOT from the proponents of this proposal. We were told there was **in fact** NO resource problem and none forseen in the future. NOW you are telling us this is REALLY about efficiency. and saying you have been "attacked" because we wanted the proponents of your proposal to give us an honest answer about the need for this proposal. And exactly what kind of "compormise" are you seeking ? With your proposal you are now asking those of us that will do the voting to trust you on the need for this change. But much as when we were asking what the problem was that necessitated this change, you have been VERY SHORT on details. 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'm not sure what you're implying here. My only agenda is to make community a better repository that makes use of its resources efficiently.
But people are saying to you that the "efficiency" comes at a big price. One they are not sure is worth paying. Some are asking you whether this kind of change is worth it. AND they are asking if the results would not be worse because less people will be inclinded to become TUs and further exasperate users that want other packages in the binary repos. ALL of these concerns and MANY others have been presented by those seeking answers to the questions your proposal creates. NO ONE amongst the proponents of this proposal have addressed these concerns with the same vigor, time, and space that you are spending discussing your ideas. In the Tu's irc I was told by one of the proponents that he was willing to risk the unintended consequences and blowback from this change and any resulting failure. That's nice of him !! But how does a TU go back on this proposal and the "other ideas" once you start down that road? IF you think this single proposal has been so hard to accomplish, imagine trying to fix the damage should it backfire on us.
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" ? Bob Finch
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. 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. 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.
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.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
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.
Oh there's way more than that. Let me make a point here that Loui, Callan, Simo, Dan, and myself do the coding work here. As far as I can tell, all of us prefer this proposal. Keep that in mind - the people doing work *for you* to make your lives easier, want some moderation on this system before it gets out of hand. People will *always* abuse a system with no rules. You guys are more than free to do whatever you want, but as long as you're running on the ArchLinux server, using code written by ArchLinux developers, then our opinions should matter. Please refrain from replying in novels too - it's too hard to digest. Being succinct is a skill.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
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.
Oh there's way more than that. Let me make a point here that Loui, Callan, Simo, Dan, and myself do the coding work here. As far as I can tell, all of us prefer this proposal. Keep that in mind - the people doing work *for you* to make your lives easier, want some moderation on this system before it gets out of hand. People will *always* abuse a system with no rules.
There has been only one person we have had to deal with by discipline in 5 years. I woudl say that speaks well for the system we currently have. I was taken to task in the message you make a quote form above for "wild claims", yet you wnat this becuase you are waiting for things to get "out of hand". Hmmmm.
You guys are more than free to do whatever you want, but as long as you're running on the ArchLinux server, using code written by ArchLinux developers, then our opinions should matter.
They do matter. And when I have asked YOU for details, you have not illuminated upon them with details. You still speak in generalities and prophesties, while I am being criticized for doing that as a response to your proposal. When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your entire proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this proposal is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time.
Please refrain from replying in novels too - it's too hard to digest. Being succinct is a skill.
You have been very distinct. But alas that is easy when you do not give details. When I was asked for details I did the polite thing and reply with details. Then within a few days you guys write as it you haven't seen them yet I am critized for being too wordy and so forth and so on. <- Nice debating trick, but nothing more. People reading these things can see through that. **** Look, I have now said this three times. No one is upset at what you do and we ALL appreciate it. And yes we would like to know more details about what you want to do. PLEASE supply them, in detail, and let US decide what should be first. The coding changes SHOULD be first. Alternative proposals, like fund raising dirves to improve the resource WHEN they are ready to be upgraded SHOULD be first. <- Now these are MY thoughts, but others agree with them. They have said so in the past weeks. And yes the order of when and how these proposals are considered DOES matter. Is that so hard to accept ? Regards; Bob Finch
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
**** Look, I have now said this three times. No one is upset at what you do and we ALL appreciate it. And yes we would like to know more details about what you want to do. PLEASE supply them, in detail, and let US decide what should be first. The coding changes SHOULD be first. Alternative proposals, like fund raising dirves to improve the resource WHEN they are ready to be upgraded SHOULD be first. <- Now these are MY thoughts, but others agree with them. They have said so in the past weeks.
It's not even about resources anymore. We spent over $2000 of donation money to fix our resource issue. I don't want to see it happen again... quite frankly, we can't afford it. Couple this with the fact that we NEED to produce source tarballs for packages (INCLUDING those in community), we're going to run into a space limitation soon. Seriously, proper GPL compliance is more of an issue to me that the community repo. If I have to set server-side restrictions on the sizes of repos to account for this, I will. At that time proposals of this nature WILL be important.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
It's not even about resources anymore. We spent over $2000 of donation money to fix our resource issue. I don't want to see it happen again... quite frankly, we can't afford it. Couple this with the fact that we NEED to produce source tarballs for packages (INCLUDING those in community), we're going to run into a space limitation soon.
core,extra,community sources weights ~12G. Dropping games from community saves ~1G and substracts ~0.5G from sources. Also we may change archiving method to [pkg|src].[tar.bz2|7z] ))
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s@gmail.com> wrote:
core,extra,community sources weights ~12G.
Dropping games from community saves ~1G and substracts ~0.5G from sources.
Also we may change archiving method to [pkg|src].[tar.bz2|7z] ))
Are games specifically quite low in pkgstats? We wouldn't want to lose any popular packages. -- Callan Barrett
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Sergej Pupykin <pupykin.s@gmail.com> wrote:
core,extra,community sources weights ~12G.
Dropping games from community saves ~1G and substracts ~0.5G from sources.
Also we may change archiving method to [pkg|src].[tar.bz2|7z] ))
Are games specifically quite low in pkgstats? We wouldn't want to lose any popular packages.
-- Callan Barrett I don't think it's related to that so much as the fact that they require a rather large amount of room, and we have the Arch Games repo to move them to for people who want the binaries. As I've said before, any TUs who wish to move games from community are more than welcome to continue maintaining them in arch-games. I'd wait for the moment
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 18:21, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote: though, as hopefully we will have nondestructive package movement out of community. (regarding votes and comments, etc)
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think it's related to that so much as the fact that they require a rather large amount of room, and we have the Arch Games repo to move them to for people who want the binaries. As I've said before, any TUs who wish to move games from community are more than welcome to continue maintaining them in arch-games. I'd wait for the moment though, as hopefully we will have nondestructive package movement out of community. (regarding votes and comments, etc)
But if the packages are popular surely they should be in community, that's the point of this entire vote. I haven't seen it as putting a limit on actual package size. -- Callan Barrett
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
But if the packages are popular surely they should be in community, that's the point of this entire vote. I haven't seen it as putting a limit on actual package size.
Right. The games problem will be greatly mitigated when generic architecture packages will be fully supported. Corrado
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:39 AM, bardo <ilbardo@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
But if the packages are popular surely they should be in community, that's the point of this entire vote. I haven't seen it as putting a limit on actual package size.
Right. The games problem will be greatly mitigated when generic architecture packages will be fully supported.
Which is a whole 'nother ballgame, as the community backend scripts in no way relate to the official repo backend scripts. I am adding 'any' architecture support into the official scripts. Hopefully the community backend rewrite that some people have planned will make use of the official DB scripts, and kill 2 birds with one stone here
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:01, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote: <snip>
When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your entire proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this proposal is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time.
<snip>
Regards; Bob Finch
Regarding your claim that things have never gotten out of hand: What part of the 29-hour downtime caused by the community repo do you not consider "out of hand"
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com<daenyth%2Barch@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:01, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:
<snip>
When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your
proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this
entire proposal
is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time. <snip> Regards; Bob Finch
Regarding your claim that things have never gotten out of hand: What part of the 29-hour downtime caused by the community repo do you not consider "out of hand"
Out of context. As the "wild claims" I was accused of making related to resource issues. (I.e. Stuff like hardware and so forth) I have never made that claim concerning background coding. Lou and I were speaking about the abuse by the TUs of the repo. Regards; Bob Finch P.S... Adopting your proposal will NOT eliminate that kind of outage either. Just delay it. That is unless we all agree to limit the repo to a particular size. That is NOT part of your proposal as it is currently manifest.
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
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
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.
Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them.
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.
You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result.
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.
I have no problem with using votes as a metric. Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads. We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting them. They'd probably show similar results anyways. When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it. If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't offered anything in cooperation to this discussion. Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned about votes here:
From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes this package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the voting.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
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.
Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them.
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.
You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result.
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.
I have no problem with using votes as a metric. Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads. We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting them. They'd probably show similar results anyways.
Don't forget a "fourth" metric: my personal favorite, automated votes :).
When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it. If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't offered anything in cooperation to this discussion.
Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned about votes here:
From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes this package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the voting.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
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.
Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them.
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.
You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result.
So you say. Yes Lou I have proposed something that *will* accomplish the same result. And without changing anything. And I have mentioned it three times. And you keep denying it. ONE OF MY PROPOSALS 88SHOULD*8 A PROBLEM BE MANIFEST: SINCE Aaron is using donated funds to improve things, then we should FIRST be looking at ways to improve that donation system, because there has NOT been either a targeted or focused fundraising effort to date. I even told Aaron that I would donate a sum he would be thrilled to have, he ONLY had to ask me for it here. He has not asked me. Others have asked me if I was serious about this on the TU irc channel, so the fact that you missed this is telling. I am sure others, IF ASKED, would do the same as me and donate as needed. And NO, a link onth e home page is NOT the same thing. i.e. If you guys put the same vigor and effort into promoting a fundraising effort, you would have the resources to host all manner of binary packages MUCH AS OTHER DISTROS DO WITHOUT A NEED TO CULL OUT THINGS AS A FIRST STEP.
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.
I have no problem with using votes as a metric. Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads. We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting them. They'd probably show similar results anyways.
There is no evidence of what you claim. None presented to us for consideration to date.
When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it. If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't offered anything in cooperation to this discussion.
Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned about votes here:
Not at all the same thing. And you know it.
From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes this package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the voting.
Lou, you are NOT anything more than coming off as cute with what you are doing above. How about at least being honest about people NOT wanting your proposal to be a first or even a second consideration for problems. Can you simply acknowledge that ? I am NOT alone in my crtique. Regards; Bob Finch
kludge wrote:
what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.
For sure, but I have yet to see any other idea proposed apart from "do nothing". And what I have put forward for the vote is very much appeasing others concerns. e.g. no current packages being for to be removed due to not passing the new criteria. Allan
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
kludge wrote:
what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough* loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your* brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.
For sure, but I have yet to see any other idea proposed apart from "do nothing". And what I have put forward for the vote is very much appeasing others concerns. e.g. no current packages being for to be removed due to not passing the new criteria.
Allan
Two short comments Allan; 1 - I have made a few other ideas known in my emails. And there have been others as well. 2 - You even addressed one of these other ideas in a chat with me on the TU's irc channel. As I recall you said you did not like asking for funds (fundraising) IF there should be a need for improved resources in the future. <- Of course the real issue is that regardless of how much your proposal might reduce hard drive loading (for instance), eventually the hard drive will fill up anyways. Then, if you are NOT prepared to raise or otherwise garner funds to replace it, you end up needing to trim even more packages from the repo. (And yes you and I discussed this as well on the TU's irc channel this past week.) Bob FInch
On Wednesday 03 December 2008 1:31:46 am w9ya wrote: [putolin]
- Yes users are ALWAYS VERY IMPORTANT, including the ones that do NOT vote. The problem is that a user has to understand enough about archlinux to get ahold of aurvotes and yaourt and manage to install them, and we forget how hard this process can be compared to simply installing it and using the binary repos. The ham radio community seeks solutions to problems adn quite frankly arch is a good solution, but asking them to vote and so forth is NOT a good solution to seeing their use represented as it is quite a bit of additional work to just vote on something. Heck most of the users of arch are not even registered users, let alone voters.
If I may be allowed to say something here..... I have been an Arch Linux user for about 1 year after migrating from Fedora to Linux From Scratch to now Arch. I have now five machines (at home) currently running Arch from desktops to servers. In my side business I build subversion systems for small businesses. I picked Arch to build these because of the rolling release model and the ABS system. ABS is an excellent system if I may say. It is easier for me to build custom system for my side business. I have in the whole time up to now have not voted upon a single package in any repo. Although I have consumed packages from most of the repos, AUR included. Voting for a package(s) is just not something that is of value to me as a user/consumer . So I can some what [ validate && understand ] what Bob Finch is saying. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sorry BASH made me do it :)
2008/12/4 Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>:
I have in the whole time up to now have not voted upon a single package in any repo. Although I have consumed packages from most of the repos, AUR included.
Voting is the only way, apart from pkgstats, that can be used to judge the popularity of a package. There cannot be an infinity of packages on the Arch server, so there has to be some kind of metric (even if it may not be accurate) to determine what packages should be in [community]. -- Abhishek
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Callan Barrett <wizzomafizzo@gmail.com> wrote:
sergej I'm sorry for trying to vote you out. It was a pretty big dick move on my part.
I think you've shown yourself to be perfectly capable of maintaining all these packages and like other people have said although it's impossible for you to put complete care into each package you're very good at fixing stuff when it's reported. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. :')
Considering some people have decided to push their own agenda in this thread (it's not a thread about voting, guys... sheesh), I will reply to Callan. Serge, I for one think you are doing a good job too. I do agree with the sentiment others have had in the past, but do not think less of you for that. You're doing a good job, so keep it up 8)
participants (15)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Abhishek Dasgupta
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Baho Utot
-
bardo
-
Callan Barrett
-
Chris Wilson
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Drew Frank
-
Grigorios Bouzakis
-
kludge
-
Loui Chang
-
Sergej Pupykin
-
w9ya