[aur-general] Should TUs tolarate inapropiate behavior in the AUR?

William Di Luigi williamdiluigi at gmail.com
Fri Feb 12 20:28:30 UTC 2016


On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Pedro A. López-Valencia
<vorbote at gmail.com> wrote:
> And I answered:
>> And if you think I am throwing ad-hominem attacks is because you
>> havenot receivied insulting emails from Det to your private mailbox.

It's still ad-hominem, technically. To *not* be ad-hominem, you should
target the specific behavior of the person, which, in that specific
thread, was the "Inactive maintainers" comment. Yes, Det made that
comment. However, Ralph misunderstood the meaning of the comment (he
said so in the other thread). Thus, Det did nothing wrong as for the
specific thread. Thus, if you attempt to "confirm the suspicion that
we're dealing with a sick individual" you're throwing ad-hominem

> Now, in support to my assertions there are these answers:
> Ralph Maddorf:
>> In AUR 4
>> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&SeB=m&K=Det&outdated=&SB=n&SO=a&PP=50&do_Search=Go
>> Maintainer Det: 105 packages found.
>> Submitter Det:   63 packages found.

This doesn't really tell much, to be honest. I only see a very active
maintainer who generously gives away his/her time (at no charge) to
take care of package scripts.

> Dave Blair:
>> I'm glad it's not just me then.
>> But why would anyone want to hustle AUR packages? I don't get it.
>> There are loads of orphans around, and maintaining a package can be a
>> pain. It's not like you can make a living off it.

I agree.

> Now, after this long summary there is but one matter: This kind of behavior
> has to be stopped in its tracks. I gave a fair fight, part of which David
> Reisner had news as seen in <https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/42481>, but
> that was just the start of it. The harassment made me give "Det" the vuze
> package in a fit of disgust and rage (my fault, I know).

I have read the comments there, and honestly I felt that you just
flipped out and rage quit when Det made some suggestions to improve
the package. To prove this point, the user you were interacting with
before Det (@josephgbr) clearly felt that you were being defensive. He
left only fine and polite comments, and at some point you said
something like "And before you say I'm moving the goalpost..",
suggesting that @josephgbr might be trying to argue with you. At that
point he/she said something like "Anyway, don't want to argue with
you. Thanks a lot". And then came Det.

So, from those comments I noticed that you were already a bit
defensive (and maybe even angry?), and maybe that was the issue, not
necessarily Det comments (which I didn't find aggressive, TBH).

Also, of course, there was really no reason to disown the package.
It's not obvious that a user who just made a suggestion might *want*
or even *have time* to become the new maintainer. Let's say I make a
suggestion for package X. If the maintainer of X doesn't have time to
do the improvement and tries to "give me" the package I might very
well refuse to take it.

> Now, what do I know about this "Det" character? He is Finnish, because one
> of the Gmail email addresses he used to harass and insult me had a Google+
> page with all text in Finnish (very immature content, btw). I can't find
> that page anymore, probably he deleted it, there is also
> nimetonmaili at gmail.com, where he identifies as "Daniel Davis"; he had the
> gall of gloating it is not his real name. So we can have an idea of what
> kind of sociopath is this individual.

Oh, come on now, so aren't these ad-hominem attacks?

> I let this pass for a long time, but I think it is the right time to ask the
> TUs *and* the devs to start a productive discussion about creating a code of
> conduct that allows us, the users contributing to the AUR, the forum and the
> IRC channels, to have a set of rules to be applied if people is disrespect
> to each other in the context of the community.

I am completely in favor.


More information about the aur-general mailing list