[aur-general] Official discussion period - Rules governing packages entering [community]

[kludge]

replying in-line here:

> CCing Jeff on here so he remembers this. :) The rest is a response to
> the actual content.

oh, damn, sorry... if already bugged the hell out of him. that wasn't
meant as a poke, just an example!

>> so, while the aaron/thayer amendment to the proposal (or is it a
>> separate proposal?) provides a couple useful new statistical measures, i
>> don't see that it would actually generate better statistics.  several
>> ideas have been floated to solve this particular problem, like download
>> statistics.  those all need more consideration and development, though.
> 
> If others think it is a good idea, then they must at least help
> out with the work.

granted.  and i don't think i have the skills to make that happen.  but
i think there are others who've proposed alternatives who might.

>> it seems to me that there won't be any real consensus on a concrete
>> proposal to regulate [community] until there's a mechanism for
>> generating accurate, reliable usages statistics.  i would anticipate a
>> close vote; given the furor that's surrounded this proposal, i would
>> also anticipate a lot of bad feeling on both sides arising from a close,
>> binding vote.
>>
>> if i were a tu, i'd move to table this proposal and form a working group
>> to study the social and technical problems of generating good usage
>> statistics.  it would put off a resolution to the resource consumption
>> problems, but i feel that, sometimes, "now" is not better than "better."
> 
> This sounds like way more bureaucracy (man, I can never spell that
> word) than we need or want. And with regard to your now/better point:
> I think it'd a good general rule that 75% now is better than 100% a
> year from now

<rant type="anarcho_nerd">

avoiding beauraucracy (neither can i) is essential, so that the system
doesn't start running the users.  but sometimes effecting social
organizations/algorithms is necessary to keep some users from running
other users.  i think the latter is one of the underlying-if-unspoken
concerns afloat in this discussion.  that's why i'm pimping formal
consensus processes here.  they take serious engagement, commitment to
collaboration, trust, and time.  my experience, though, tells me that
the benefits--collective buy-in and global conflict resolution--outweigh
the overhead.

arch is getting bigger and bigger social groups need to emerge *some*
form of internal structure, or they fracture into smaller groups that
can be self-managing without those structures.

<rant type="anarcho_nerd">

dog, we're gonna have to change the subject-line *again*!

-kludge