[aur-general] TU Meeting
w9ya at qrparci.net
Sat Nov 29 03:49:07 EST 2008
Some quick comments/corrections to Allan's Wiki page;
- His first question/answer about the purpose of the Community Repo; <- The
AUR was not in existence in ANY form for several years AFTER the
introduction of TU **BINARY** repos. While Allan (and others) may truly
believe that the community repo is designed strictly to be a place for
popular AUR contributions there is NO historical basis for this belief. i.e.
We the TU's, as WHOLE group, have *never* determined this to be a sole basis
OR requirement for binary packaging. Nor, in the past when this has come up
(and it has a few times), have we EVER decided to make such a decision, as
it was considered to be a bad idea to do so for a variety of still pertinent
AS SUCH, Allan's premise is flawed as is everything else on the page is
based on this erroneous premise of purpose.
(BTW, I have been told such historical examinations are "regressive" and as
such NOT "progressive". I will encourage you all to decide if such an
understanding is "regressive" or really just a useful way to gain knowledge
and understanding and prevent mistakes.)
- Allan goes on to discuss what a "popular" package is. There is absolutely
no way to determine what 3, or 20, or what any number of votes truly
represents for a variety or reasons. I have discussed just why there can be
no correlation in a previous email. Prior to sending that email I asked for
such a correlation and received none. I then wrote that email where I
outline the flawed mathematics, I have yet to see a rebuttal. There is NO
way to tabulate and correlate the votes as to representing even a percentage
of users. Do NOT let Allan or anyone else tell you otherwise. It simply is
NOT true at this time.
TO WIT; whether it is 3 votes (the original minimum suggested) or 20 votes;
they are merely a number with NO MEANING. SO why should we place ANY
**ARTIFICIAL** meaning to them ? AND why are we using them at all ?
- It is also worthy to note that in the course of a week or two since this
minimum number was first proposed it has changed from a requirement of 3
votes to 20 votes. What will the number be next month ? Six months from now
Why should any TU even want to contribute new and interesting BINARIES when
the number can change so quickly and by a small number of "leaders" deciding
for him/her ? Why should ANY TU spend time *properly* vetting an AUR
contribution through adoption only to have it removed at a future date
because it no longer had the require number of votes ?
FURTHER; when have we EVER let a small number of TUs make any decisions for
the rest of the TUs ? IS it wise to change the successful TU system into
merely a training ground for future DEVs and all of the TUs merely "junior"
DEVs grinding out packages because they receive votes ? Where is the
creativity in that ?
- Finally, but far from the least important consideration, is that we are
being asked to do this because of a lack of server resources. I would like
to remind everyone that this proposal will only delay the day until this
minimum number of votes is increased OR the servers will need to be
upgraded. I for one would rather like to contribute some real hard cash and
simply do the necessary infrastructure upgrades and NOT set such a
precedence of paradigm changes in a very successful system. Changes that
will be hard or virtually impossible to remove once they are adopted, more
especially because they will NOT solve a resources problem for any useful
length of time. Can ANYONE truthfully assert that these changes will
alleviate ANY resource problems for any real length of time ? The only
correct answer is no. And so the folks presenting the TUs with this decision
have said as much in prior emails.
****** Oh yeah, DO NOT FORGET that there are no alternative proposals to
remedy the server problems because they have NOT been outlined in enough
detail to determine if this is the best or even a good proposal to alleviate
these vaguely declared problems. ******** i.e. WHAT problems, or WHAT
nature, and WHY are they NOW a problem ?
Thanks for reading this far. I hope every TU really asks themselves whether
this has been truly well thought out or not. Ask the tough questions. Seek
an understanding of just how this will help and whether it is truly of merit
or merely the beginning of other changes that will result in a paradigm
shift in our VERY successful and truly unique TU/AUR system.
Very best regards;
THE **FIRST* TU.
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> The first TU meeting in a long time (over a year!) is on at 9.00pm GMT,
> Sunday 30 November. Afternoon US time, early Monday morning for me... we
> will keep a log for those who can't make it then. Anybody needing the TU
> channel key, send me an email.
> I have made a page with what will be the main discussion topic and what
> I propose to improve the community repo. Feel free to make additions to the
> page (and sign them so we can tell who wrote what), especially the final
> Talk to you all then.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general