On 1/15/20 4:17 PM, michael Bostwick via aur-general wrote:

Hi, This is my first time writing the mailing list, to be honest I would have preferred anther way of bringing this up, but *I didn't see an easy way to bring my concern to someone who's empowered to fix this strong comment or make it better.* I was looking into a package to solve a complex programming task when I encountered a rather jarring pinned comment . ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libc%2B%2B/#pinned-678768 )

" Hi people, this is your regular reminder to SHUT UP about validpgpkeys checks and complaints about the fact that test suites exist.

This package is doing the correct thing, and there has been a great deal of pointless moaning and whining about it, but there is also multiple pinned comments explaining why every one of those complaints is not only null and void, but retroactively ridiculous.

The banhammer is ready and waiting in case you *still* want to ignore all this on top of the Trusted User warning."

I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment,and I really hope as trusted users in the future you guys would *be a little more kind* to members of the aur community.

The package in question has suffered to a very surprising degree from tremendous quantities of abuse heaped upon the maintainer. Since that pinned comment was added, users have stopped being mean to the maintainer. As a result, no one has needed to be banned. If you had moderator privileges on the AUR and could see the contents of the deleted comments -- of which there are many -- I suspect you'd rapidly understand why people are at the end of their tether.

Many linux users may be familiar with Linus Torvalds writings on his mistakes with EQ, I hope no one in aur has to experience that.

For those trusted AUR members that have been kind I say *thank you for your hard work*, and for those that mean well but are harsh please keep in mind when you see a package the first thing you see in the pinned comment (and alot of context that is missed), and that speaks loudly to your impressions of aur. I have been kind... to the AUR package maintainer. This is more important than being kind to users, because the package maintainer is

I'm not even sure I recognize the abbreviation "EQ", but given it's some sort of Linus Torvalds reference I'm fairly positive no one has been personally attacked or called names on that AUR page. Some people who were behaving very impolitely indeed, were given an ultimatum that their behavior was not an acceptable way to treat people, but more on that later. Hmm, I wonder: does that make me the champion of community kindness, here? Is my attempt to enforce that, now being met with objections from you, who would like to defend the right of users to be as offensive as they want without having to suffer the consequences of being banned for their behavior? the one who does the work, and therefore we would like him to continue doing the work rather than being chased away by ungrateful users heaping abuse upon him because he wrote a PKGBUILD for software that takes a while to compile, and users apparently hate maintainers that don't offer instant gratification. Futhermore: the so-called "unkindness" you speak of is simply a warning stating that users are not permitted to complain about two very specific things which are simultaneously correct to do *and* which the package maintainer has very patiently explained the purpose of and the makepkg options to disable them if the user optionally chooses that they don't wish these things to happen. Despite these very patient, thoughtful pinned comments by the package maintainer, we would periodically have like ten comments in a row discussing those two things, by people who did not read the pinned comments and were upset that the package "doesn't work", calling the maintainer stupid, demanding a binary repository for the package, or simply derailing the comments with some discussion about their needing to delete gpg.conf in order for the /usr/bin/gpg command to work. Most people will not even see this warning, because they simply download the PKGBUILD with an AUR helper and neither see existing comments nor post their own. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

Hello, Michael, Eli. On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 05:09:24PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:

On 1/15/20 4:17 PM, michael Bostwick via aur-general wrote:

...

Hi, This is my first time writing the mailing list, to be honest I would have preferred anther way of bringing this up, but *I didn't see an easy way to bring my concern to someone who's empowered to fix this strong comment or make it better.*

I think it's perfectly fine to reach out to the community at large like this. Welcome, and nice to meet you.

...

I was looking into a package to solve a complex programming task when I encountered a rather jarring pinned comment . ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libc%2B%2B/#pinned-678768 )

" Hi people, this is your regular reminder to SHUT UP about validpgpkeys checks and complaints about the fact that test suites exist.

This package is doing the correct thing, and there has been a great deal of pointless moaning and whining about it, but there is also multiple pinned comments explaining why every one of those complaints is not only null and void, but retroactively ridiculous.

The banhammer is ready and waiting in case you *still* want to ignore all this on top of the Trusted User warning."

I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment,and I really hope as trusted users in the future you guys would *be a little more kind* to members of the aur community.

The package in question has suffered to a very surprising degree from tremendous quantities of abuse heaped upon the maintainer.

Since that pinned comment was added, users have stopped being mean to the maintainer. As a result, no one has needed to be banned.

If you had moderator privileges on the AUR and could see the contents of the deleted comments -- of which there are many -- I suspect you'd rapidly understand why people are at the end of their tether.

I'd like to echo this, because I think it speaks to the context of the message. It's hard to keep your temper when somebody is constantly being harassed and abused for no reason and people are not willing to listen. Having said that, I do think that the message is not at *all* welcoming, and that's the crux of the problem that Michael is bringing up. Somebody, anybody, that walks into that package page without context would assume somebody is being an asshole to anybody who disagrees. I strongly think we should rephrase it into something that still maintains the warning for trolls/unsavory users, without being this acid. It's a valid concern the one that Michael bring, and I think we should listen to it.

Hmm, I wonder: does that make me the champion of community kindness, here? Is my attempt to enforce that, now being met with objections from you, who would like to defend the right of users to be as offensive as they want without having to suffer the consequences of being banned for their behavior?

on the other hand, Eli, I think we should probably save ourselves things like this. They add very little to the conversation.

...

For those trusted AUR members that have been kind I say *thank you for your hard work*, and for those that mean well but are harsh please keep in mind when you see a package the first thing you see in the pinned comment (and alot of context that is missed), and that speaks loudly to your impressions of aur. I have been kind... to the AUR package maintainer. This is more important than being kind to users, because the package maintainer is the one who does the work, and therefore we would like him to continue doing the work rather than being chased away by ungrateful users heaping abuse upon him because he wrote a PKGBUILD for software that takes a while to compile, and users apparently hate maintainers that don't offer instant gratification.

I don't fully agree with this. Everybody is part of the community. I do appreciate you stepped in to defend a Packager, but Users are a *very* important part of the community and we should strive to make them feel as such.

Futhermore: the so-called "unkindness" you speak of is simply a warning stating that users are not permitted to complain about two very specific things which are simultaneously correct to do *and* which the package maintainer has very patiently explained the purpose of and the makepkg options to disable them if the user optionally chooses that they don't wish these things to happen.

I don't think anybody here would disagree with the goal of the pinned message, but rather the tone of it. To close, I think giving context is important. It's hard to stay at our best when you see somebody facing an onslaught of abuse, yet I think it's in our best interest to work towards a more welcoming community. Eli, I suggest you re-phrase that message. Michael, thanks for bringing this up. Thanks, -Santiago

On 1/15/20 6:07 PM, Brett Cornwall wrote:

...

If you had moderator privileges on the AUR and could see the contents of the deleted comments -- of which there are many -- I suspect you'd rapidly understand why people are at the end of their tether.

The only directly mean comment I see is one from 2018-09-30 where someone elegantly wrote:

...

Stop beeing arrogant <maintainer>, and help, if not shut up! Sometimes talk toa human is a lot better way of learning !

All the other comments seem to be the typical fare for those that expect Arch to support AUR helpers/make the experience "easier". Perhaps I missed some.

That one definitely hit a low point, yes, but there were a couple nearly as bad, including (as I mentioned) the one calling the maintainer stupid because the gpg key wasn't added to the PKGBUILD and needed to be manually downloaded, claiming that the package was "added to manjaro" because otherwise it's too hard to install.

It appears that the pinned comment in question was indeed added after a small uptick in the undesirable comments. I have doubts as to whether it has actually stopped any sort of behavior - adding one more comment atop a pile doesn't seem effective to me, and comments have since occurred despite the new pin.

I'm not discounting the probable possibility that the maintainers received some nasty emails, but the deleted comments I can see are tame (if tiring to look through). The Arch Linux community has issues with interacting like human beings; however, I find the pinned comment in question to be tame (if colorful).

...

...

Many linux users may be familiar with Linus Torvalds writings on his mistakes with EQ, I hope no one in aur has to experience that.

I'm not even sure I recognize the abbreviation "EQ", but given it's some sort of Linus Torvalds reference I'm fairly positive no one has been personally attacked or called names on that AUR page.

I came across https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence

That seems like a very complicated way to hide the words "lacking empathy" behind vague scientific terms. Also either I suck at google, or google sucks at me. :( Not only did I not recognize the term, I also couldn't even resolve the abbreviation to the term.

...

Some people who were behaving very impolitely indeed, were given an ultimatum that their behavior was not an acceptable way to treat people, but more on that later.

Hmm, I wonder: does that make me the champion of community kindness, here? Is my attempt to enforce that, now being met with objections from you, who would like to defend the right of users to be as offensive as they want without having to suffer the consequences of being banned for their behavior?

While I think that your pinned comment is acceptable, I'm not sure that deriding a user from trying to help the community is. I see where this is going, and it'd be good to just stop it now before it becomes another drama train.

I don't think this is actually the case, to be honest. It's just a potential interpretation, if you look at things the wrong way and miss context. Much like the AUR comment. How do you distinguish between "user raises concern about TU sensitivity to users and offers a role model from an unfortunately controversy-laden source", and "user defends repeat abusers from justified banning through the use of Linus Torvalds/Code of Conduct controversy comparison to paint authority figures in a bad light"? How do you distinguish between "moderator threatens harsh punishment for people who break the rules after being warned", and "moderator threatens to ban people for disagreeing with him"? Perhaps we could all agree both that this thread was not intended in malice to abet troublemakers, and that the AUR comment was not intended in malice against users.

...

I have been kind... to the AUR package maintainer. This is more important than being kind to users, because the package maintainer is the one who does the work, and therefore we would like him to continue doing the work rather than being chased away by ungrateful users heaping abuse upon him because he wrote a PKGBUILD for software that takes a while to compile, and users apparently hate maintainers that don't offer instant gratification.

[...]

Everyone in the world is in a consumption role at some point or another, including package maintainers. It's up to everyone to be civil - it's not "us" vs "them": For every one comment/email received from a bothersome user, ten/twenty other users are following rules and going about their day. It's like retail work: Lots of assholes abound in the public sphere, but not everyone's an asshole so don't treat them like one.

Right, I'm not saying it should be "us" vs. "them", merely that in a case where the package maintainer and some consumers have already ended up at odds, I think it's generally useful to side with the maintainer in the interest of encouraging maintainership.

What's important *right now* is not the pinned comment, but how those in leadership positions in Arch Linux treat the users that come forward with concerns. Consider Santiago's less intimidating demeanor in another thread to outright rejection of anything that Michael wrote - likely with some hesitation due to nerves or social doubts. I'm not saying that everyone's proposal needs to be considered, but everyone's communications should be treated fairly (so long as they're civil).

I did consider it, in my other response to the thread -- I'm open to the possibility that the wording of the comment can be improved, and I offered an example suggestion. But I think there's two separate issues that Michael raised, and I'm not sure where the line lies between them: - Is the comment itself worded in a way that gives unwitting bystanders an unwelcoming feeling? - "I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment", which seems to be an unambiguous judgment upon whether or not it's okay to ban users. This second concern does not attempt to contextualize the offenses themselves. Is it never okay to ban people, or are there some things you can ban people for? Given the comment itself was warning against people posting about avalidpgp checks and "complaints about the fact that test suites exist", and directly under that is another pinned comment "Stop this incessant spam", and "Repeat offenders will have their accounts suspended", it might be worth... looking for comments that deal with such issues? (It is also, I feel, a generally accepted practice in communities of various natures, that people who repeatedly violate a rule are potentially liable to being banned on those grounds alone. *The AUR comment could be reasonably interpreted to refer solely to enforcement of this concept.* If users are warned not to do something in the package comments, and they do it anyway, then it doesn't *matter* how justified their comment is, it is still a rules violation, and they would be advised to first discuss via appropriate channels like the mailing list, whether they should be allowed to do that thing, in this case, post about validpgp or testsuite removal.) Given the two pinned comments occurred 5 months apart, one might suspect that whatever was going on, it was indeed "incessant". Also if it takes 5 months before we start threatening to ban people... i.e. a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of the matter would, I think, eventually conclude that there is definitely something not immediately obvious going on in the history, and "I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment" is a hasty judgment that trivializes the decision-making process that goes into a ban. ... Questioning the tone of the warning is a concern I'm totally fine with someone raising -- and I accepted as much in my other email. In *this* mail, I was more focused on defending the right to actually give people an ultimatum and ban them at all, as that seemed to be being called into question and I very much do not believe that should be the case. As such, I've pointed out that there was a context to the event, and that this context matters. I would have preferred to see an email which said "I hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment simply for asking an innocent question in good faith", which would better parallel the interpretation that Michael is concerned the comment itself was more strongly worded than it needed to be in order to relay its message. And then I could respond very simply: "That is correct, the only people who need to be concerned about the warning are a select group of people who demonstrated by e.g. repetitive action that they were no longer acting in good faith. What can I do to clarify this comment's intended audience and scope?" -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

On 1/15/20 5:35 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:

On 1/15/20 4:17 PM, michael Bostwick via aur-general wrote:

...

Hi, This is my first time writing the mailing list, to be honest I would have preferred anther way of bringing this up, but *I didn't see an easy way to bring my concern to someone who's empowered to fix this strong comment or make it better.* I was looking into a package to solve a complex programming task when I encountered a rather jarring pinned comment . ( https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libc%2B%2B/#pinned-678768 )

[...]

...

I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment, and I really hope as trusted users in the future you guys would *be a little more kind* to members of the aur community. Many linux users may be familiar with Linus Torvalds writings on his mistakes with EQ, I hope no one in aur has to experience that.

For those trusted AUR members that have been kind I say *thank you for your hard work*, and for those that mean well but are harsh please keep in mind when you see a package the first thing you see in the pinned comment (and alot of context that is missed), and that speaks loudly to your impressions of aur.

While there were indeed some good reasons to potentially ban certain participants on that AUR package, it seems like maybe there's some confusion here about who it was meant for.

I'd consider it reasonable to clarify it by e.g. adding a preamble:

"Hey people, sorry for the interruption if you're just an average AUR user doing their thing. But if you're one of the handful of people causing an utter ruckus here recently, I'm afraid we'll need to have a PSA. The rest of you can return to your regularly scheduled usage of the AUR."

The original comment was somewhat context-sensitive with regard to the actual content it addressed, which was indeed atrocious and deserved to be described as atrocious.

FWIW: I've updated that comment for clarity and tweaked wording, which I hope now makes it a lot clearer what it is a response to (I ended up making a couple more change than I had initially). Feedback is welcome. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User