[aur-general] Circle that A
w9ya at qrparci.net
Thu Dec 4 07:58:47 EST 2008
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at 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
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
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" ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general