[aur-general] TU Meeting
w9ya at qrparci.net
Sat Nov 29 14:56:14 EST 2008
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > 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.
Here i will middle post as you did. (Sometimes other forms of posting can
make sense btw. So PLEASE do not put me onthe defensive.)
> > 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.
>  http://omploader.org/veDEy
I cannot even begin to understand what this list of numbers means. Again,
without simple and SPECFIC understandings, this is not of any value. AND it
is important with statistics to not only understand (label) the collums you
produce, but also what assumptions AND methodology were taken in their
So far NO ONE has offered this up, so the numebrs have no USEFUl meaning.
Again I ask Why are we voting on numbers that onlyh one person has any
remote understanding of ?
> > 5 - Since it has been declared that these are the first of many changes
> > 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
Yes and I am happy that this has been taking place. I have offered money and
no one has seen fit to take it as my part towards a solution for resource
But I ask yet again; How is removing 100 or so binary packages that you all
are saying no one uses going to change anything for morew than a few weeks ?
How are these "unused packages" representing a drain on resources ?
How are releasing 2 % of storage space going to seriously and for the long
term going to represent anything of value ?
I can go on and on, as these questions are still not answered and are basic.
It is quite simple to come up with them.
> > 6 - Numbers are being thrown around which have NO basis unless compared
> > against one another. But with possibly over 36,000 users of archlinux,
> > MANY more; How can a programs like "google-earth" only be getting 400
> > ? 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
> > 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.
A gross and readily apparent assumption. By your definition the entire ham
community that downloads and uses my repo as well as myself (as I do not
vote and have never "registered" myself as a "registered user" past my
TU-ship do not "really matter".
Geesh.... what a stretch you have taken.
> > 9 - Voting can be faked. How is this being dealt with ?
> Pkgstats can help verify the votes.
Maybe, but not until they have been in place, **vetted**, and have been
running for MANY MANY months.
> > 10 - If we DO make these changes, we will be changing the system from one
> > TU discretion and creativity to where the AUR users decide the work load
> > 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
> > included in their work without restrictions, and the AUR submitters will
> > 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
> > 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.
Well that relegates the TUs to nothing more than users then. Not what was
intended at ANY point in time. The only thing a TU does unique is to
contribute to the community repo. I ask again, how is that not a restriction
over what we have now ?
> > 11 - Will we have less rather than more people wanting to become TUs
> > this will become the least creative endeavor for someone wanting to
> > contribute ?
> That's a false assumption.
So you say. I was asked what were some of the concerns. That amounts to
opinion per se. Or in other words you are pointing out that an opinion of
other TUs is an false assumption. Would you care to bet on whether more or
less people will want to become TUs if you take away some of their
discretion ? Are you saying that it is true that MORE people will want to
become TUs if we change things to something more restrictive ?
> > 12 - If the TU pool becomes BOTH smaller and LESS creative, will this
> > 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.
If my only choice is to decide from what others or myself have voted on, I
AM more restricted than before such a rule. How is a rule designed to
elliminate choices not a restriction ? How is a restriction not a reduction
in creative choice ?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aur-general