[aur-general] TU application - Kyle Keen
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne. My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash. Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply. Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted. Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com 1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash.
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com
1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
I confirm that I have agreed to be Kyle's sponsor. Let the discussion period begin!
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
Hi, Kyle asked me also to sponsor him but Dave did it before him and i want to sponsor only one at a time. Definitely if i wasn't sponsored Dave, i would do it.
My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash.
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pretty much love the bot. It did improve my tracking skills on bugs and it was a good addition. -- Ionuț
Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
Hi, Kyle asked me also to sponsor him but Dave did it before him and i want to sponsor only one at a time.
Definitely if i wasn't sponsored Dave, i would do it.
What? You were his original choice for sponsor? I feel so used and cheap. How many more were there, Kyle? Tell me! Am I just your sloppy seconds? Your cheap rebound sponsor to get you through the lonely application after you were turned down? How can I ever trust you again if I can't see through the lies? Your emails weren't even signed! Now I need to take my inbox down to the clinic. How could I have been so stupid? Curse my ego and how easily flattered it is! Curse the vanity that led me to believe I was your first! Curse my perpetual naïveté! The shame! The hurtful, treacherous shame!
On 12/03/2010 04:22 AM, Xyne wrote:
Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
Hi, Kyle asked me also to sponsor him but Dave did it before him and i want to sponsor only one at a time.
Definitely if i wasn't sponsored Dave, i would do it.
What? You were his original choice for sponsor? I feel so used and cheap.
How many more were there, Kyle? Tell me! Am I just your sloppy seconds? Your cheap rebound sponsor to get you through the lonely application after you were turned down? How can I ever trust you again if I can't see through the lies?
Your emails weren't even signed! Now I need to take my inbox down to the clinic. How could I have been so stupid? Curse my ego and how easily flattered it is! Curse the vanity that led me to believe I was your first! Curse my perpetual naïveté!
The shame! The hurtful, treacherous shame!
grow up! :D -- Ionuț
How can we vote? :) On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 12/03/2010 04:22 AM, Xyne wrote:
Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/02/2010 08:20 PM, keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
Hi, Kyle asked me also to sponsor him but Dave did it before him and i want to sponsor only one at a time.
Definitely if i wasn't sponsored Dave, i would do it.
What? You were his original choice for sponsor? I feel so used and cheap.
How many more were there, Kyle? Tell me! Am I just your sloppy seconds? Your cheap rebound sponsor to get you through the lonely application after you were turned down? How can I ever trust you again if I can't see through the lies?
Your emails weren't even signed! Now I need to take my inbox down to the clinic. How could I have been so stupid? Curse my ego and how easily flattered it is! Curse the vanity that led me to believe I was your first! Curse my perpetual naïveté!
The shame! The hurtful, treacherous shame!
grow up! :D
-- Ionuț
-- Blog: http://www.gtklocker.com/
On 03/12/10 23:35, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
How can we vote? :)
No-one who top-posts is allowed a vote.
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 14:57 +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 03/12/10 23:35, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
How can we vote? :)
No-one who top-posts is allowed a vote.
:D
Wise decision !
I'm bottom-posting, ergo I deserve a vote!
On Friday 03 December 2010 15:03:46 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 14:57 +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 03/12/10 23:35, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
How can we vote? :)
No-one who top-posts is allowed a vote. : :D
Wise decision !
I'm bottom-posting, ergo I deserve a vote!
Sorry, but ((not p) implies (not q)) does not imply (p implies q)! :-p
On Fri, 3 Dec 2010 15:10:37 +0000 Peter Lewis <plewis@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
On Friday 03 December 2010 15:03:46 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 14:57 +0100, Cédric Girard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 03/12/10 23:35, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
How can we vote? :)
No-one who top-posts is allowed a vote. : :D
Wise decision !
I'm bottom-posting, ergo I deserve a vote!
Sorry, but ((not p) implies (not q)) does not imply (p implies q)!
:-p
Don't say that, if P=NP might get solved some strange guy would take that to misuse this against our rules. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
On Thu 02 Dec 2010 13:20 -0500, keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash.
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Well, we have most of the comments, they just haven't been merged back into the database. I guess we can determine later if you have any others that might be missing. How exactly did you mirror the AUR? Do you know if there's a lot of this type of thing going on? I wish people would mention this sort of thing. Maybe if there -really- is a need we can make things more efficient and streamlined. Though I still don't see why anyone would really need a whole copy of the AUR, other than for research or something similar. Glad to see you applying for TU. Cheers!
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, we have most of the comments, they just haven't been merged back
Oh, cool. Never mind then.
How exactly did you mirror the AUR? Do you know if there's a lot of this type of thing going on?
A 'for' loop? It is not hard. Only takes 30 minutes to get all the tarballs. A few hours for the comments. I dont know of anyone else doing it. I don't do it that often either.
I wish people would mention this sort of thing.
I have, on the BBS and IRC. Been doing it for about a year now.
Though I still don't see why anyone would really need a whole copy of the AUR, other than for research or something similar.
Yeah, about that. Let me get back to you when I figure out how to deal with 20 thousand users. That has been the biggest stumbling block for the past year.
Glad to see you applying for TU. Cheers!
Thank you. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com
keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash.
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com
1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general. keenerd wrote:
If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two thousand maintainers do a better job.
Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500 schrieb keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com>:
find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best practices.....
This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues writing those AUR comments. That's too many.
As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results personally, before you write such AUR comments.
Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written very thoughtfully and are tested a lot.
And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even fake.
Heiko
I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them. Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with disastrous consequences. Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:16, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
keenerd wrote:
Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne.
My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some Bash.
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com
1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general.
keenerd wrote:
If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two thousand maintainers do a better job.
Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500 schrieb keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com>:
find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best practices.....
This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues writing those AUR comments. That's too many.
As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results personally, before you write such AUR comments.
Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written very thoughtfully and are tested a lot.
And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even fake.
Heiko
I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them.
Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with disastrous consequences.
Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason for trying to apply.
Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table Drop that should be re-inserted.
Thanks for your consideration, Kyle http://kmkeen.com
1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general.
keenerd wrote:
If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two thousand maintainers do a better job.
Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500 schrieb keenerd<keenerd@gmail.com>:
find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best practices.....
This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues writing those AUR comments. That's too many.
As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results personally, before you write such AUR comments.
Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written very thoughtfully and are tested a lot.
And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even fake.
Heiko
I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them.
Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with disastrous consequences.
Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less -- Ionuț
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:36, Ionuț Bîru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less
-- Ionuț
Ah, I must have misread something.
On 12/07/2010 05:36 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less
I think he actually launched the AUR-bot: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8388 (first comment) -- freenode/pyropeter ETAOIN SHRDLU
PyroPeter wrote:
On 12/07/2010 05:36 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less
I think he actually launched the AUR-bot: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8388 (first comment)
Some AUR users have posted on the list in response to the bot. I can't find the others right now but here's one: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012330.html Just to be clear, the bot does not insult anyone and it does state the reason for the comment rather than some ambiguous "ur pkg is full of fail, lol" comment. My issue is that I consider the launch premature and overzealous and I'm seeking reassurance that in the future ongoing discussions will be considered before action is taken.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:14:01 +0100 Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
PyroPeter wrote:
On 12/07/2010 05:36 PM, Ionuț Bîru wrote:
On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the channel. nothing more, nothing less
I think he actually launched the AUR-bot: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=8388 (first comment)
Some AUR users have posted on the list in response to the bot. I can't find the others right now but here's one:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012330.html
Just to be clear, the bot does not insult anyone and it does state the reason for the comment rather than some ambiguous "ur pkg is full of fail, lol" comment.
My issue is that I consider the launch premature and overzealous and I'm seeking reassurance that in the future ongoing discussions will be considered before action is taken.
Still because of that quickshot I'll change my previous expectation to vote. Even a reassurance won't change that for this vote, probably for a future one but not for this. Sorry but once a application is passed the applicant has directly to show a responsible behaviour, TU stands for Trusted User not Trolling User. This is not meant as a direct insult, don't misinterprete it. Atsutane -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
Thorsten Töpper wrote:
Some AUR users have posted on the list in response to the bot. I can't find the others right now but here's one:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012330.html
Just to be clear, the bot does not insult anyone and it does state the reason for the comment rather than some ambiguous "ur pkg is full of fail, lol" comment.
My issue is that I consider the launch premature and overzealous and I'm seeking reassurance that in the future ongoing discussions will be considered before action is taken.
Still because of that quickshot I'll change my previous expectation to vote.
Even a reassurance won't change that for this vote, probably for a future one but not for this.
Sorry but once a application is passed the applicant has directly to show a responsible behaviour, TU stands for Trusted User not Trolling User. This is not meant as a direct insult, don't misinterprete it.
Regardless of how it was meant, "Trolling User" was inappropriate imo. The intentions were good. It's the rashness that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Realizing that it was a bad idea and that there are better ways to do things is enough.
On 8 December 2010 02:56, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Thorsten Töpper wrote:
Some AUR users have posted on the list in response to the bot. I can't find the others right now but here's one:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2010-December/012330.html
Just to be clear, the bot does not insult anyone and it does state the reason for the comment rather than some ambiguous "ur pkg is full of fail, lol" comment.
My issue is that I consider the launch premature and overzealous and I'm seeking reassurance that in the future ongoing discussions will be considered before action is taken.
Still because of that quickshot I'll change my previous expectation to vote.
Even a reassurance won't change that for this vote, probably for a future one but not for this.
Sorry but once a application is passed the applicant has directly to show a responsible behaviour, TU stands for Trusted User not Trolling User. This is not meant as a direct insult, don't misinterprete it.
Regardless of how it was meant, "Trolling User" was inappropriate imo. The intentions were good. It's the rashness that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Realizing that it was a bad idea and that there are better ways to do things is enough.
I don't see this as a real problem to this application. He is competent enough and aside from the recent undertakings his attitude is totally fine, and I'm sure his bots will be a good tool internally. Making rash decisions can be solved by advice and warnings.
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:56:12 +0100 Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Thorsten Töpper wrote:
Still because of that quickshot I'll change my previous expectation to vote.
Even a reassurance won't change that for this vote, probably for a future one but not for this.
Sorry but once a application is passed the applicant has directly to show a responsible behaviour, TU stands for Trusted User not Trolling User. This is not meant as a direct insult, don't misinterprete it.
Regardless of how it was meant, "Trolling User" was inappropriate imo. The intentions were good. It's the rashness that's the problem as far as I'm concerned. Realizing that it was a bad idea and that there are better ways to do things is enough.
You're right, that was far too harsh, pardon me for this formulation. @Kyle: Starting a discussion about the tarballs was a good idea, what followed was wrong, so I'm stuck between an Abstain and a No and I guess some other TUs are also thinking about how they should handle this. The discussion is nearly finished, still a statement from your side might help to decide, which of these two options seems right, even after the end of this phase. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de>wrote:
... I'm stuck between an Abstain and a No and I guess some other TUs are also thinking about how they should handle this...
You can stop being stuck; with the current bylaws Abstain and No are functionally identical. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 20:53:40 Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de>wrote:
... I'm stuck between an Abstain and a No and I guess some other TUs are also thinking about how they should handle this...
You can stop being stuck; with the current bylaws Abstain and No are functionally identical.
Just out of interest - has a circumstance occured as yet where a difference in understanding of the concept of "abstain" would have affected the outcome? If so, what happened?
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:44:19 +0000 Peter Lewis <plewis@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 20:53:40 Kaiting Chen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de>wrote:
... I'm stuck between an Abstain and a No and I guess some other TUs are also thinking about how they should handle this...
You can stop being stuck; with the current bylaws Abstain and No are functionally identical.
Just out of interest - has a circumstance occured as yet where a difference in understanding of the concept of "abstain" would have affected the outcome? If so, what happened?
Well as Kaiting said in the amendment thread, he thinks as a machine, so with this binary thinking I'll just ignore this everywhere where it's not topic of the thread, in other words for the current state: everywhere except for the amendment one. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble. -Kyle
On 8 December 2010 05:44, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
You shouldn't let other issues hinder your application. Reconsider withdrawing, because it would disappoint your sponsor. You were asked a very simple question: "Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?" And that's about it. Maybe some took the bot issue a little too seriously, but we would still vote. Personally, I believe you will be of help to the team :)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2010 05:57:34 +0800 Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 8 December 2010 05:44, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
You shouldn't let other issues hinder your application. Reconsider withdrawing, because it would disappoint your sponsor. You were asked a very simple question:
"Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?"
And that's about it. Maybe some took the bot issue a little too seriously, but we would still vote. Personally, I believe you will be of help to the team :)
Don't withdraw, you made a good impression and as long as you answer this question of Xyne I don't think there are people that vote against you as long as you assure to keep waiting till something is decided in the future. An Abstain is not a No, it is to reach quorum and I'm still mostly tending to that, as Lukas said you made a very good impression and I think if we two had real contact in the past, I still would vote clearly for you. I think this application will pass, I guess there are enough of us who really know you and vote for a Yes as they really know your person and don't just read some forum posts as I did. So don't withdraw, just make a clear assurance to keep low till something is really discussed and you'll pass, as long as there are more Yes votes than No votes and like I said there won't be many of the latter as you really left a good impression. An Abstain is to reach Quorum it currently has no influence on wether a vote passes or not. -- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
On Tue 07 Dec 2010 16:44 -0500, keenerd wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
Noooo. I was interested in your analysis of the AUR and I think we could make good use of it. I kind of wish I could spam users about their bad packages. I have sent a few emails manually. I guess the real issue is that if there is any action that has a widespread effect on the AUR we should always decide what should be done as a group of TUs. That's one reason that I made Jakob create a proposal for the last mass AUR cleanup. I could have easily applied the changes behind the scenes otherwise.
On Tuesday 07 December 2010 21:44:46 keenerd wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
I agree with the others - please reconsider withdrawing. I believe that we could certainly do with someone with your keenness and skills on the team. I think that if we can all have a mature discussion about this and learn from it, then I'd welcome you on board. This has raised an interesting point though - perhaps we should also agree some sort of guidance for large actions that are likely to affect lots of users (like with this bot), that requrie a proposal and a vote etc. Pete.
On 7 December 2010 22:44, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
-Kyle
Hello, Kyle, I'd say that you just showed that you understand what you did wrong. But please, do not withdraw your application. I think there is still a high chance that your application will pass. Lukas
keenerd wrote:
After much heavy thought, I withdraw my application. My apologies for the trouble.
-Kyle
I agree with the others who feel you should reconsider your withdrawal. I also want to explain myself. I was hesitant to voice my concerns about the bot, especially as your sponsor, because I understand how it could be perceived as a betrayal of sorts. I understood that it would evoke negative reactions among some TUs and that it might cost you some votes. At the same time, I genuinely felt (and still do) that it was something that needed to be addressed and that I would not be doing my job as a TU had I not brought it up. I agreed to sponsor you because I believe that your skills and motivation can enrich the team and benefit the community and I still stand by that belief. All I wanted was for you to address the concerns and to assure those among us who shared them that you would be less impetuous as a TU, and I still hope that you will. Technical skills are only part of the requirement for becoming a TU. Being able to communicate meaningfully with other TUs and work as a team is just as important. In this case, showing that you can accept and address criticism would make you a stronger candidate, in my opinion. So again, please reconsider. Regards, Xyne p.s. I really do feel a bit bad about this.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
You shouldn't let other issues hinder your application. Reconsider withdrawing, because it would disappoint your sponsor. You were asked a very simple question:
"Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?"
That depends. Here are three examples were it is pretty cut and dry: Using the good name of the TUs, using magic tu.php powers, or using information only TUs have access to. Before going anywhere near that stuff I'd get permission in triplicate. In other words, great responsibilities are attached to even the least of *TU* resources. However, an AUR scanning/reporting bot could be made and operated by any *non-TU* in less than two hundred lines of any scripting language. I'll agree the bot was poorly executed. The trigger thresholds were initially set a bit too low. Less than 1/3 through the scan I greatly increased the triggers (ignore improper nesting, ignore less than four PNGs/GIFs/JPGs). To act as if this is a black and white issue draws a parallel with a very unethical Non-Compete agreement: "While you are a programmer for FOO Corp, you are not allowed to write/release software outside of work." I have never and would never take employment with such a company. (Conversely, I have never worked on FOSS stuff for fun while on the clock.) What rights, that we have as ordinary users, are given up even outside of the TU sphere? Retracting my withdrawal would be cheating. I will wait at least three months, as a fair interpretation of the Bylaws requires. By the way, this ML has very strict and undocumented rules regarding attachments. I do all sorts of work to get my charts and graphs the under the 100KB limit, only to find that all PNGs are scrubbed out. The irony. Check my site later for those. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:15 PM, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll agree the bot was poorly executed. The trigger thresholds were initially set a bit too low. Less than 1/3 through the scan I greatly increased the triggers (ignore improper nesting, ignore less than four PNGs/GIFs/JPGs).
To act as if this is a black and white issue draws a parallel with a very unethical Non-Compete agreement: "While you are a programmer for FOO Corp, you are not allowed to write/release software outside of work." I have never and would never take employment with such a company. (Conversely, I have never worked on FOSS stuff for fun while on the clock.) What rights, that we have as ordinary users, are given up even outside of the TU sphere?
Retracting my withdrawal would be cheating. I will wait at least three months, as a fair interpretation of the Bylaws requires.
I don't think the three month rule applies in this case. Your application was not rejected by Standard Voting Procedure. Admittedly how to proceed in this case is not altogether clear per the by-laws but by my interpretation if your application did not reach the voting period, then if would follow the same procedure as any other motion that did not reach the voting period. A good example is the slew of by-laws amendments flying around. Each version is slightly different from the previous one, and only one will ever reach the voting period; the discarded ones are effectively 'withdrawn'. It would be ridiculous to require the edited version of each proposal to sit tabled for a minimum of three months: we would never get any work done. I believe Thorsten was too harsh in his mail regarding your bot, and I agree with your assessment that your actions were well within your rights as a normal user. I think what all of us are concerned about is that it may appear as if you have spoken for all of us regarding a policy matter that in actuality has not been decided. In all honesty I don't think it was a huge deal. You are very excited about Arch Linux; potentially you're about to become a Trusted User; people get overzealous and things like this happen. Most of the comments that your bot left were not controversial at all. The important thing is to learn that you will be working as part of a team, and what you say or do affects how that team is perceived. Ideally I would like to see your resubmit your application immediately because I think that your skills and enthusiasm would make a great addition to the team. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
On 9 December 2010 02:15, keenerd <keenerd@gmail.com> wrote:
However, an AUR scanning/reporting bot could be made and operated by any *non-TU* in less than two hundred lines of any scripting language.
In fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to say. That issue is you doing something as an Arch Linux user, and that's all. An idea you tested. Some people liked it, some people didn't. That is why I believe it should have nothing to do with your TU application. I didn't even expect anyone to bring that up here, but Xyne did what he felt was right. I can see that you're demotivated by the (bot) feedback. Anyway, it's up to you and your sponsor now :) Three months later or not, you're definitely TU material.
keenerd wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
You shouldn't let other issues hinder your application. Reconsider withdrawing, because it would disappoint your sponsor. You were asked a very simple question:
"Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this again?"
That depends.
Here are three examples were it is pretty cut and dry: Using the good name of the TUs, using magic tu.php powers, or using information only TUs have access to. Before going anywhere near that stuff I'd get permission in triplicate. In other words, great responsibilities are attached to even the least of *TU* resources.
However, an AUR scanning/reporting bot could be made and operated by any *non-TU* in less than two hundred lines of any scripting language.
I'll agree the bot was poorly executed. The trigger thresholds were initially set a bit too low. Less than 1/3 through the scan I greatly increased the triggers (ignore improper nesting, ignore less than four PNGs/GIFs/JPGs).
To act as if this is a black and white issue draws a parallel with a very unethical Non-Compete agreement: "While you are a programmer for FOO Corp, you are not allowed to write/release software outside of work." I have never and would never take employment with such a company. (Conversely, I have never worked on FOSS stuff for fun while on the clock.) What rights, that we have as ordinary users, are given up even outside of the TU sphere?
Retracting my withdrawal would be cheating. I will wait at least three months, as a fair interpretation of the Bylaws requires.
By the way, this ML has very strict and undocumented rules regarding attachments. I do all sorts of work to get my charts and graphs the under the 100KB limit, only to find that all PNGs are scrubbed out. The irony. Check my site later for those.
I never said that it wasn't within your rights to launch the bot. It isn't even about the bot itself. The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was reached. Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc). The TUs exist to manage the AUR and their collective interpretation of the rules should carry weight. Instead, you decided that your own interpretation of the AUR guidelines was correct despite those objections and went ahead on your own. As a result, many AUR users may now be confused regarding the rules of the AUR. Of course that's within your rights, but it's not something that a prospective TU should do. Using your wild west analogy of the AUR, it shows that you see yourself as the lone gunman who lives by his own rules. That doesn't work well in a team setting. Again, the bot itself isn't the issue for me. The attitude is, or at least I think it could be. All I asked for was some indication that you wouldn't skip discussions in the future and ride off on your own, but I understand that my message and the comments it evoked were demotivational. It's unfortunate that you took it the way that you did rather than simply allay the concerns. As for your FOO Corp analogy, you weren't being asked to sign a non-compete agreement. You presented yourself as an applicant to FOO Corp. You also noticed that FOO Corp has a Facebook page and that many of its clients have posted various comments there. FOO Corp presents itself as a "family-oriented business" and you felt that there were many comments on the Facebook page that were not in line with this image. You therefore wrote a bot that could send messages to those FOO Corp clients to inform them that their comments were inappropriate. You presented your idea to the people at FOO Corp. Some of them agreed with you about which comments were inappropriate and some disagreed. You ignored those who disagreed and launched your bot before the people at FOO Corp had even reached any internal conclusion about how "family-oriented business" should be interpreted and used to evaluate the appropriateness of the Facebook comments. Could someone outside of FOO Corp write such a bot. Obviously. Is it within your rights to do so? Yes. Is it understandable that it would raise some eyebrows while considering your application? I think it is. Even if you do so on your own time, FOO Corp should be worried if you have a different interpretation of FOO Corp's policies and act on that interpretation in a way that directly affects FOO Corp's clients, especially if you show that you have no interest in determining official policy first. The intention is clearly good but the wrong interpretation of the desired outcome leads to bad results. The length of my replies might be taken to mean that this is a bigger issue than it really is. I'm simply trying to be thorough in explaining myself. This isn't an attack on you. I really hope that this doesn't diminish your overall enthusiasm for Arch. /Xyne
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was reached.
It seemed discussion had petered out.
Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc).
In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of packages in the lists attached to the original post. I will look for stronger consensus in the future.
The length of my replies might be taken to mean that this is a bigger issue
I'm just glad you are taking the time to write them. -Kyle http://kmkeen.com
keenerd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was reached.
It seemed discussion had petered out.
Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc).
In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of packages in the lists attached to the original post.
I will look for stronger consensus in the future.
Fair enough. I still have a different interpretation of how the discussion went but delving into that wouldn't serve any real purpose and it would just feel like nitpicking. I also realize that it wasn't as active as I may have perceived it. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? :| /Xyne
On Thu 09 Dec 2010 09:54 -0500, keenerd wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
The issue as I see it is that you presented the idea on this list for discussion but didn't care to follow that discussion until a conclusion was reached.
It seemed discussion had petered out.
Some TUs objected to the bot and I think you should have taken those objections into consideration (e.g. that icons should be tolerated, etc).
In the days before the launch there were seven replies. Of these, three were positive and four were neutral. Not one negative comment or objection. (From just TUs: 1 positive, 2 neutral, 0 negative.) All advice given in the neutral comments was applied. Tone of the message was greatly lightened in the case of icons. Silly workarounds like base64 were removed. No one commented on the number or choice of packages in the lists attached to the original post.
I will look for stronger consensus in the future.
If in doubt start a vote. ;)
On 7 December 2010 19:10, Thorsten Töpper <atsutane@freethoughts.de> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:14:01 +0100 Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
Still because of that quickshot I'll change my previous expectation to vote.
Even a reassurance won't change that for this vote, probably for a future one but not for this.
Sorry but once a application is passed the applicant has directly to show a responsible behaviour, TU stands for Trusted User not Trolling User. This is not meant as a direct insult, don't misinterprete it.
Atsutane
-- Jabber: atsutane@freethoughts.de Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
I have the same feelings. When I first read Kyle's application I thought it's great to have someone like him on board and he would get my Yes for a 100%. Kyle is certainly doing a lot of good for Arch Linux and I'm sure he wrote the bot with good intentions. But launching the bot without discussion wasn't very responsible. Now I'm somewhere in between. On one hand I think Kyle would be a great addition to the team, especially given his enthusiasm. On the other hand I'm a bit scared about such impulsive behavior as the launching of the bot was.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them.
Kyle I'm really hoping that what I said last night on IRC did not make you think it would be a good idea to do this. I did not make a clear distinction between execution of established policy which you may go ahead and do whenever and in just about whatever way you want; and a decision of policy which should come from the group as a whole and may or may not involve a vote. Regardless I think the mistake is minor in this instance; I'm going to chalk it up to enthusiasm. --Kaiting. -- Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
participants (15)
-
Allan McRae
-
Cédric Girard
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Kaiting Chen
-
keenerd
-
Konstantinos Karantias
-
Loui Chang
-
Lukáš Jirkovský
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Peter Lewis
-
PyroPeter
-
Ray Rashif
-
Thorsten Töpper
-
Xyne