[aur-general] TU Meeting

[Loui Chang]

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:39:44AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> A few points of rebuttal. Mostly too many unanswered questions.
> 
> I will outline these below, but for those of you that are becoming tired of
> all this back and forth I can say this much:

Bob, first of all please stop posting. If you're unable to properly
quote and address proper portions of someone's proposal then you're not
helping the discussion at all. It seems you're just trying to disorient
and befuddle the debate.

> 4 - There is absolutely no reason for this back and forth on simple
> questions like "show us your math. Please explain your assumptions. (Both
> basic methodology questions.) Why are we being asked to do this now ? Can
> you be more specific ?

There is some data that Daenyth and I were collecting to see
how effective some of the proposed changes would be.

[1] http://omploader.org/veDEy

> 5 - Since it has been declared that these are the first of many changes to
> improve our resource utilization, what else is being planned or considered ?

If you've been following the news, there have been server upgrades.
I've also made a few changes in the community scripts that help slightly
and I plan to do even more. The last part of a total solution would be
to implement a minimum vote requirement, or suggestion. If not that,
then some way to minimise the number of packages that are largely
unused.

> 6 - Numbers are being thrown around which have NO basis unless compared
> against one another. But with possibly over 36,000 users of archlinux, maybe
> MANY more; How can a programs like "google-earth" only be getting 400 votes
> ? How can this possibly be based on the the number of users ? There are
> other such examples. NO ONE has explains what numbers like "3" and "20"
> votes can represent ? If numbers like "3 votes" can mean either 3 users or
> 350 users; How can we be throwing around any **real** meaning from ANY
> number such as "20 votes"  ?

There is literally no way to ensure -absolute- accuracy.
Some people don't participate in polls, some people don't even vote, yet
you still can elect a President.

The people that participate and care about the repo are those that
really matter.

> 9 - Voting can be faked. How is this being dealt with ?

Pkgstats can help verify the votes.
 
> 10 - If we DO make these changes, we will be changing the system from one of
> TU discretion and creativity to where the AUR users decide the work load and
> output of a TU. The devs and the aur voters will be deciding what the TUs
> do. The devs will be able to make decisions, as they do now, as to what is
> included in their work without restrictions, and the AUR submitters will be
> deciding on their own what to submit. BUT the TUs will be UNIQUELY
> restricted however. How do the people proposing this plan to enlarge the TU
> pool when this position will have the least amount of creativity and
> discretion of those available ?

The TUs won't be restricted any more than users. They can submit any
kind of package just like users. The community repo is what would be
restricted. The TU's priviledge will be submitting access to
community within reason and a say in the future direction of AUR.
 
> 11 - Will we have less rather than more people wanting to become TUs because
> this will become the least creative endeavor for someone wanting to
> contribute ?

That's a false assumption.
 
> 12 - If the TU pool becomes BOTH smaller and LESS creative, will this pool
> of potential devs represent less well trained candidates ?

No. That has little to do with the number of packages in [community].
I wonder where you've pulled this creativity factor from.