[aur-general] Circle that A

[Drew Frank]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us
> probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them.
>
>> 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.
>
> You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result.
>
>> 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.
>
> I have no problem with using votes as a metric.
> Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads.
> We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because
> they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting
> them. They'd probably show similar results anyways.

Don't forget a "fourth" metric: my personal favorite, automated votes :).

> When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it.
> If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you
> should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with
> the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't
> offered anything in cooperation to this discussion.
>
> Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned
> about votes here:
>
> >From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html
>> P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes
>> this
>> package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the
>> community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the
>> voting.
>
>