[aur-general] pkgstats and community - attempt 2
grbzks at gmail.com
Tue Dec 2 19:32:36 EST 2008
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:33 AM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> (This should NOT require a reply, as it is merely some short observations.)
> Hey Allan and those who are still bothering to read all the emails on this;
> I decided to review some of the early emails leading up to your current
> proposal to modify the 'community' repo and how it is used. And I found this
> thread you forked and it seemed like a good idea to write you this personal
> but public reply. I am quoting your email in it's entirety below. I am going
> to ask you to do something at the end of this message, and I hope you have
> the courage and foresight to read through this email twice. I will NOT be
> mincing words, because quite frankly now is not the time to do so.
> I am somewhat bemused, because while I do believe that you honestly wanted
> some input on whether there was a bandwidth or server loading problem with
> the way things were, and a discussion amongst the TUs about not only whether
> this was an issue worthy of concern and subsequent modifications; It ALSO is
> a discussion about the very nature of the TU system. We cannot, whether
> anyone wants to ignore this notwithstanding, disconnect the effects, both
> long term and unintentional from such sweeping changes.
> You see this has come up before, in fact several times. And each time it has
> been discussed openly and without getting personal. That is up until now. I
> have gotten some really interesting reactions this time, some of it quite
> nasty too. I have been put on the defensive for merely pointing out that
> sometimes changing things without deep consideration is bad. I have been
> told by some of your fellow devs to NOT comment on this proposal. All of
> this has been a concern for me. I would hope such behavior and other
> behavior wherein I have been called "regressive" for standing in the way of
> this and other "fixes" should concern you too. None of it amounts to
> anything other than untoward coercion. And sadly YOU are in the middle of it
> as this is YOUR proposal. Whether you intend for this behavior to represent
> you, it unfortunately has NOT been repudiated by you either.
> But most importantly I can answer your concerns about server/system loading
> this way; It is not a concern because the folks that are in charge of
> maintaining such things say it is not a concern, and this just two days ago
> in another email thread about 'what belongs in the community repo'. Further,
> when things in the past have gotten overloaded, they have been fixed by more
> direct means than what you are asking about. i.e. Servers are upgraded,
> software is upgraded, connections and so forth are improved.
> THE REAL QUESTION you are asking about is whether such a restriction and
> fundamental change makes sense. And the answer is, once again as it has been
> several times in the past years, NOT A NEW ITEM to vote upon. This question
> comes up quite regularly for the TUs to vote upon. In the past year or so
> Aaron G. was pointing out that the TUs should or might want to look at how
> the devs do things as regards what is in the community repo during one of
> these votes. And now he is saying so again. He has a list of changes he
> would like to make. *** But the WHOLE point of the TU system is to be
> something that does NOT work as a "junior" or "auxillary" repo. It is NOT
> SUPPOSE to work like other repos. Wanting it to be like the dev's work or
> their repos is something we have ALWAYS rejected. i.e. THE VOTING (or
> deciding to have a proposal) HAS ALWAYS REJECTED PROPOSALS TO RESTRICT THE
> REPO CONTENTS OR HOW SOMEONE ADDS TO THE REPO.
> You see Allan, the TU system is an experiment that can be found NO WHERE
> ELSE in computing I am aware of. NOWHERE else can a group of users be so
> involved and with the freedom to contribute as we, (individually OR in
> groups,) find it useful to do so. ONLY with this CURRENT system. We have
> ALWAYS sought to create the most freedom herein so we could get the most
> benefit. Quite frankly your proposal seeks to replace this with a system of
> rules for inclusion and voting for exceptions and one TU seeking the
> approval of other TUs before adding something and so forth. This is a
> FUNDAMENTAL change in the way things are. And the is NO GOOD reason to do
> so. You have been given several weeks to outline why, and you have yet to do
> so. Some future resource problem is not a good enough reason. And yes we
> HAVE discussed this very issue in past voting on other proposals.
> To date the ONLY REAL problems the TU system is facing is that are that we
> keep seeing these same proposals to "fix" problems that do NOT exist. AND
> THAT IS NOT ALL THAT IS WRONG with your current proposal. It has brought out
> the unfounded criticism of Sergei and myself ONCE again. And these matters
> too have been decided in past voting, and since nothing has changed, should
> remain decided. Why should I keep having to explain that I know of users of
> the software I supply that cannot or will not use the voting system ? Why
> should Sergei keep having to explain why he is doing things the way he is ?
> Yes, he is now, once again being attacked for the way he is doing things.
> And I do NOT find this kind of 'piling-on' behavior to be anything other
> than repugnant. It points to the worst in our characters and allows
> detractors of Archlinux ammunition for their jeers and asides.
> I want you to consider that we ALSO have been seeing some rather elitist
> behavior from those supporting your proposal too. It has been rather well
> established that there is no way to know what even a vote of 0 represents,
> let alone ANY number. Yet I have seen MANY messages talking about the
> "useless glut" of programs in community, and that if someone does not vote
> they do not "count" and what packages they use should not be "considered"
> for what programs are "allowed" to be in the community repo". Well if you do
> not know what people are using, how can ANYTHING be either "useless" or part
> of a "glut". All of this should be a concern to you. IS this what you want ?
> Are you so fed up with the way things are now that you are willing to be a
> part of such a disreputable thing ?
> Quite simply, are you willing to let Archlinux remove the ONLY unique thing
> that separates it from other *nix distros. Are you willing to be a part of
> turning the "community repo and the TU/Aur system" into something that only
> a majority can decide what will be in it, when there is now space for all to
> contribute ?
> Anyone that wants to add a program to community now, whether they are a TU
> OR a dev. OR a USER can do so. It has yet to be a problem. All ***ANYONE***
> has to do is go through a one-time election process wherein NO_ONE has EVER
> been turned down except for lying.
> And we have never had to discipline a TU for *ANY* reason.
> So I will leave you with this comment; Please do not seek to "fix" something
> that is NOT BROKEN. It is a fool's errand, and you will not be able to
> moderate or contain any unintended consequences from your actions any better
> than you have been able to contain any of the poor behavior your proposal is
> creating. Your message that I quoted below begins with your concern about
> things getting out of hand. I hope you reconsider your proposal. Rescinding
> it now would show real courage and understanding; Wisdom beyond your years,
> so to speak.
> Best regards;
> Bob Finch
> P.S... Yes I have made some tactical mistakes responding to some of the
> nasty stuff directed at me in some threads as of late. Please do NOT let
> this affect your contemplation on this proposal
That was very nice read indeed.
There is another REAL QUESTION (in your own words) which you have conveniently
regreted to refer to..
Why do you use Archlinux hosting for maintaining packages for your own
why should the Archlinux community care about that?
Personally, I would very much like an answer to that, but even survive
More information about the aur-general