[aur-general] Circle that A
w9ya at qrparci.net
Thu Dec 4 12:47:24 EST 2008
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> > In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal
> > fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.
> I have been honest and I've tried to provide you with data. You, on the
> other hand, have made wild claims about the proposal ruining the system,
> etcetera. You have provided no data, and no proof for your claims.
YOUR data did NOT support your claims of resource overload. In fact the data
you showed was way too simplistic to garner anything from them. I was being
polite not mentioning that a second time yesterday. And yeah I mentioned it
before. And someone else brought that to your attention too.
As for "wild claims" . I made no claims about "ruining the system". I have
however suggested that we will have less freedom and OTHER TUs have pointed
out that they will be LESS IMCLINED to spend time contributing. If that
means les rather than more as a result of implementing your proposal, well
you can call that "wild", but I just would call it likely.
Please let us keep this an honest discussion.
> If anything you are the one being dishonest.
> Why don't you be honest about the fact that you never gave this proposal
> a chance? Your first protests were not about us being dishonest or about
> there being no need for increased server resources. They were about the
> claim that the TU system never held any value in votes before. That you
> were *promised* votes would never mean anything.
Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be
possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL
run across those discussions about the voting being added to the TU/Aur
system. At that time we were SPECIFICALLY told that this would not be used
for restrictions in the future. Writing about that now is NOT being
dishonest. It is rather DIRECTLY related to what you propose.
As for not giving your proposal a chance. Your very correct about that. I
CHOOSE not to give it a chance. That is NOT however dishonest either. It is
not a bad thing to speak out about a proposal one does not like and sees
other way to accomplish the same result.
I am sorry you feel my speaking out is being dishonest.
> When I look back in the mailing list archives to January I can see
> the same fanatical mania from you.
> > And remember that ANY time to make things more specific and rigid, you
> > WILL have unintended consequences and worse a real chance for blow-back
> > affecting you personally. It certainly will make the TU position less
> > attractive to request and THEN we ALL suffer.
> Quite a prophecy. Again, no evidence to your claims.
In fact someone within the last two days (I think it was yesterday) wrote
It might bear noting that your prophesty is that things will improve with
your proposal. Yet those that are using a package and not voting on it will
see the opposite of an improvement as far as their usage is concerned. And
you HAVE seen people speak up and say they are NOT using the voting system
becuase they too see no value in it.
I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your proposal
BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like an
exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with your
proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out that
the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric.
You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the repo
more "efficient", THEN and ONLY THEN shoudl you be asking us to consider
such a proposal.
> > > 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
> > needs "to be done" ?
> They've been said already but here are some for you:
> 1. Clean up [community].
> 2. Improve community scripts.
> 3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.
I see no need for item no. one. That has been my complaint from the
ANYTHING else I have pointed out, like the proponents of your proposal
talking about impending resource issues has been DIRECTLY related to your
bringing that up. I merely responded.
If you lacked candor and/or did not know you were wrong about such things,
well that is NOT my fault.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general