[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz]

On 10/28/18 10:43 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> It is also pretty annoying for me, personally, to be flat-out told
>> (before this TU application process even started) that I personally,
>> would have refused to reopen a bug report for which there was a reopen
>> request, save for a mailing list thread having been opened about it.
>>
>> I stated pretty clearly on September 30:
>>
>> "It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
>> the first time."
> I'm breaking a promise to not email you any more about this, but this
> argument is not correct. I did not say or imply that you denied to
> re-open the bug. I said it was denied. Which later I admitted was an
> incorrect statement from my side, because as you said, this particular
> one was not denied to re-open.

And on the very next line...

>> I received the response: "Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I
>> am mistaken."
> Again, at the time, I was thinking I did try to re-open this particular
> bug, when it was another one. This was discussed, pointed out to me and
> I have repeatedly admitted my mistake. Why am I, two weeks after the
> fact, being called a liar?

Because when you did admit this mistake, you continued to assert that
your mailing list thread was the thing which caused the other bug to be
reopened.

And because complaining on the bugtracker about how "the bug wranglers
are denying to reopen the bug" is not a question, it's an accusation,
and I expect if you accuse something of happening that you at least be
able to keep your *own* actions straight.

> I did not say or imply that you denied to re-open the bug. I said it
> was denied.

I am one of the two bug wranglers, ipso facto either I or Scimmia denied
it if anyone did.

More specifically, I never said this at all. I said I was annoyed about
your claim that *I would have* denied it -- had you not posted a mailing
list thread.

Again, let's go back to the email.

I said, in my very first post to the list:

> One bug was improperly closed and I've reopened it (that's why you can
> request this)

Your response to my use of the word "I", was to gloss over that
paragraph and the following two paragraphs, in which I explained why the
second bug was denied, and said that the third bug was never closed in
the first place (and pointed out it was even accepted and assigned to
the maintainer).

Instead, you quoted my fourth paragraph, and responded:
> I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with
> little to no comment/explanation.

As then later:
> The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open
> without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe
> after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it.

Even though you're literally responding to my pointing out that of the
two, one was never closed, and the other was reopened by *me*.

Your response is unclear, as I mentioned the python2 bug in position #2,
you used position #3. So it's possible you thought the bug I said I
reopened is the one you said was "denied", and the one I said was never
closed is the one you said Filipe re-opened. I'm still not sure how that
confusion would happen either.

You finished off with the statement:

> So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about
> it here. That to me is 'denied'.

Then when in my next email I stated:
> It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
> the first time.

You respond:

> Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken.

So, you've switched abruptly from stating that the bug was "denied" to
stating that they were only denied "until I made a fuss about it here",
and you asserted as proof that since I re-opened the bug chronologically
*after* the fuss in question, this means it was your fuss that made me
*willing* to re-open it.

...

Now, relevant to this TU application thread:

You want to know why I am suddenly bringing this up 2 weeks later?
Because even after I called you out on this 2 weeks ago, you went ahead
and said it again, in this very thread -- the statement to which I
responded at all!

> 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 you think that by apologizing for your error of thinking all three
bugs were closed, you make it all better? I don't care about whether you
were correct in stating that! I care about your attitude when you stated
it, and I care about the fact that you *still* have not apologized to me
for the issue which I *do* care about, which was your accusation that
both I and Scimmia have neglected our duty as Bug Wranglers by denying
your bugs on a whim, and only reopening them due to the publicity threat
that was your mailing list thread!

> Could you have not said that simply - e.g. 'Please allow for a couple of
> days before sending emails. We discourage this on the mailing list.' -

No, I could not have said that. Do not send emails, period. The mailing
list is not the bugtracker, and posting to the mailing list does *not*
get your issue fixed. The mailing list is a self-help forum for *users*,
to which developers, trusted users, and other staff members may or may
not be subscribed (we are users too, and many of us are subscribed). We
do *not* encourage bug reports on the mailing list, and the only thing
the mailing list is good for (save for aur-general, but not
arch-general, serving double purpose as the Trusted User voting booth
under certain circumstances) is to maybe try to get an idea of
"happening things in the Arch Linux community". This is a *horrible* way
to get formal process in any package at all, but a great way to tell
random Arch *users* everywhere about whatever is on your mind.

At the absolute minimum, check the bug report to see if the re-open
request has been rejected, and if it has been, feel free to email us
*privately* to resolve the matter. Or reach out to us on the active IRC
channel.

If it is still pending, do *not* bother people about it, until at least
a minimum of more than 7 hours has passed since the time you originally
opened the bug. In fact, let's be extra generous and wait at least 5
days since the re-open request was filed -- so, 5 days and somewhere up
to 6 hours.

I think this waiting thing is pretty reasonable. In fact, I think it is
common sense! Especially the "wait more than 6 hours" bit.

What I don't think is reasonable, is when during the course of that
thread you stated:

> Well, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I felt I was being
> shunned and tried to be explicit in why I'm writing the email and what
> bothered me. Sorry, if someone was offended.

So because you felt shunned, you ignored due process and ended up
providing a couple potential reasons for someone potentially wanting to
maybe shun you, when they had no problem with you beforehand.

If this is your reaction to being shunned one time, what will happen the
next time you feel shunned?

> to which I have possibly replied - 'OK, it was late evening Sunday and I
> didn't wanna leave it for the beginning of the week'.

You didn't want to leave it for the beginning of the week, so you
desperately CC'ed aur-/g/eneral in under 7 hours from beginning to end
of the entire history of your three bugs, asking why we didn't evaluate
based on meritocratic merit within those 7 hours:
- your second re-open request
- the bug you accidentally thought needed similar evaluation

and additionally decided that the best way to determine how to properly
handle a package *not being moved to community* (upload it to the AUR
yourself?) is to publicly complain/ask that the bug was erroneously
rejected? Did you try emailing Felix Yan privately to ask what his
philosophical approach to the package would be? Did you try asking how
best to handle an AUR package that is the python2 analogue to a
[community] python3 one, without implying via reference to your "denied
resolution" bug that the blame is on the [community] repository for
failing to provide your rightful python2 analogue?

I'm sorry our legendary bleeding-edge response time got delayed by 9
hours. </sarcasm>

> I am not a trusted
> user, I am not first-hand familiar with how everything is handled. I do
> not send emails every day. In fact, if you look in the history, I only
> send emails when I think there's a problem I have tried to fix, failed
> to address it myself and looking for advice.

You keep saying "looking for advice" and I keep seeing "posting to the
mailing list with an assertion that the bugs you reported were
incorrectly denied".

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20181028/dbc1cf9f/attachment.asc>