[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

Doug Newgard scimmia at archlinux.org
Fri Oct 26 17:23:21 UTC 2018

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
Konstantin Gizdov <arch at kge.pw> wrote:

> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> > I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
> > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
> >
> > In this thread, you:
> >
> > 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
> > knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.  
> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
> trying to do that.

You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
reason), and say things like:

"The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
with care and updating with new features."

The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
offense, but you're an idiot". 


> > 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
> > whining is how things get done. It's not.  
> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
> exampes.
> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.

And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
request and reopened it.

In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you,
it accomplished nothing good.

> > 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.  
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**

So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet
you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181026/ea74f54d/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the aur-general mailing list