[aur-general] Package voting alternatives

[Sebastian Nowicki]

On 28/12/2009, at 8:16 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

> Excerpts from Sebastian Nowicki's message of Mon Dec 28 10:54:14  
> +0100 2009:
>>
>> On 28/12/2009, at 5:40 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/12/28 Philipp Überbacher <hollunder at lavabit.com>:
>>>> For package A there might be two releases per year, for package B  
>>>> 15.
>>>> For package C there might be only one update per upstream release,
>>>> for
>>>> package D there might be 5.
>>>
>>> The math will take care of that :)
>>
>> In all seriousness, it would to an extent. Votes could be made more
>> significant than downloads, and downloads could be time-scaled more
>> severely than votes, etc. The downloads of a frequently updated
>> package as opposed to an infrequently updated package can be
>> normalized. It is a very good point though. The question is, would
>> this system be more accurate than plain votes, and would it be worth
>> implementing it?
>>
>> There will never ever be a flawless algorithm, we just need one  
>> that's
>> the most suitable. Perhaps I'm over-complicating things and a voting
>> system is enough. After all TUs make the final decision about which
>> packages get into community.
>>
>
> Personally I think you're overcomplicating things. To me it seems the
> votes don't matter anyway. There are guidelines for the number of  
> needed
> votes afaik but from my limited experience packages only get into
> community when a TU is interested in them, in which case the votecount
> doesn't matter at all.

I agree. So it seems votes are fine the way they are then?