[arch-general] Fwd: [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results

[w9ya]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:44 PM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> > I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history
> of
> > earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right
> now.
>
> We can talk about the past until we turn blue if you want, but it's
> not going to help us. Have you ever heard the term "progressive
> thinker" used to describe someone? Progressive. Forward motion. What
> we have here is regressive thinking, and it's just dumb because it
> gets us no where. If it's just idle talk, then post it in a blog entry
> or a wiki page or something so people can read at their leisure. If
> it's for the sake of argument, then it's "regressive".



Yes I am quite familar with those terms. See the comment below your
following paragraph as to why it is not relevant to whether history has
anything to teach about "progress(ive)".


>
>
> I'm not trying to say your points are invalid. They're probably sound,
> but I haven't seen enough rationale to know that. You don't influence
> people to your ideas by saying "we used to do it this way!", you do it
> by saying "this way is better because (a), (b), and (c)".
>
> I'd just really like to see actual point/counterpoint here instead of
> "this sucks because we never used to do it".


I did point out specific arguments... and today even and MANY times. You
missed it I guess. OR you just saw it as a history speel and did NOT learn
the lessons to be learned ***that I clearly pointed out***.

It clearly is NOT progress(ive) to dismiss the benefits of the way things
are now being run OR to call their (being) use(d) as regressive.


>
> >> Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em
> >> gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new
> >> body of people who are ungoverned.
> >
> > Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure
> that
> > you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'.
>
> No. Sorry. I don't have any impact on what the TUs do. The TUs are,
> and always have been, fairly autonomous. This is by design. I cannot
> change the rules without slamming some sort of iron fist down on them,
> which I will not do.


Good. On this we can be in agreement. **You** should NEVER seek to control
the community considering the fact that you are the ONE person that has the
authority to overule anything the community decides by fiat.

If there is a problem with the servers and the load becuase of the community
repo, please let's talk about that and how the community can help. I was
reacting to input that was already forming a basis for using a bot's output
to determine and regulate a TU's contribution. Further it was NOT clearly
pointed out that this was being discussed because of a server/trunk load
issue UNTIL it was challenged.

Best regards;

Bob Finch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20081110/d708fe69/attachment.htm>