[aur-general] Circle that A
w9ya at qrparci.net
Thu Dec 4 13:40:14 EST 2008
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:18 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
So you say.
Yes Lou I have proposed something that *will* accomplish the same result.
And without changing anything. And I have mentioned it three times. And you
keep denying it.
ONE OF MY PROPOSALS 88SHOULD*8 A PROBLEM BE MANIFEST: SINCE Aaron is using
donated funds to improve things, then we should FIRST be looking at ways to
improve that donation system, because there has NOT been either a targeted
or focused fundraising effort to date.
I even told Aaron that I would donate a sum he would be thrilled to have, he
ONLY had to ask me for it here. He has not asked me. Others have asked me if
I was serious about this on the TU irc channel, so the fact that you missed
this is telling.
I am sure others, IF ASKED, would do the same as me and donate as needed.
And NO, a link onth e home page is NOT the same thing. i.e. If you guys put
the same vigor and effort into promoting a fundraising effort, you would
have the resources to host all manner of binary packages MUCH AS OTHER
DISTROS DO WITHOUT A NEED TO CULL OUT THINGS AS A FIRST STEP.
> > I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your
> > BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like
> > exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with
> > proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out
> > the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric.
> > You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the
> > 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.
There is no evidence of what you claim. None presented to us for
consideration to date.
> 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:
Not at all the same thing. And you know it.
> >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.
Lou, you are NOT anything more than coming off as cute with what you are
doing above. How about at least being honest about people NOT wanting your
proposal to be a first or even a second consideration for problems. Can you
simply acknowledge that ?
I am NOT alone in my crtique.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general