On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:02:30PM -0600, kludge wrote:
> there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms
> of non-hierarchical organization. one of the keys to success is
> effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. one of the
> most effective is formal consensus. "consensus" is another concept i
> see abused without much thought here.
>
> what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits
> the needs of all stake-holders. i see a few personalities trying to
> impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough*
> loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your*
> brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.

One huge problem is that these ideas were being attacked from the outset.
There were few opportunities for compromise or even a half civilised
discussion.

I'm not sure what you're implying here. My only agenda is to make
community a better repository that makes use of its resources
efficiently.

No one ever said that this idea was the only good idea. There is
definitely room for more ideas. There is more to be done.

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 07:02:30PM -0600, kludge wrote:

> there are, though, lesser and greater, more- and less- functional forms

> of non-hierarchical organization. *one of the keys to success is

> effective, equal discussion and decision-making processes. *one of the

> most effective is formal consensus. *"consensus" is another concept i

> see abused without much thought here.

>

> what i see is not folks trying to develop a plan of action that suits

> the needs of all stake-holders. *i see a few personalities trying to

> impose their agendas by winning arguments. (greg *cough* allan *cough*

> loui *cough*) please y'all, consider the possibility that *your*

> brilliant idea may not be the *only* brilliant idea out there.



One huge problem is that these ideas were being attacked from the outset.

There were few opportunities for compromise or even a half civilised

discussion.
The proponents of this idea/proposal were NOT up front with those whose votes they sought. We asked why there was a need for such a radical change in the way we were doing things and were told there was a resource problem. We asked for details about this for almost three weeks. Finally we got our answer, but NOT from the proponents of this proposal. We were told there was **in fact** NO resource problem and none forseen in the future.


NOW you are telling us this is REALLY about efficiency. and saying you have been "attacked" because we wanted the proponents of your proposal to give us an honest answer about the need for this proposal.


And exactly what kind of "compormise" are you seeking ? With your proposal you are now asking those of us that will do the voting to trust you on the need for this change. But much as when we were asking what the problem was that necessitated this change, you have been VERY SHORT on details.


In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal in fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.
*




I'm not sure what you're implying here. My only agenda is to make

community a better repository that makes use of its resources

efficiently.
But people are saying to you that the "efficiency" comes at a big price. One they are not sure is worth paying. Some are asking you whether this kind of change is worth it. AND they are asking if the results would not be worse because less people will be inclinded to become TUs and further exasperate users that want other packages in the binary repos.


ALL of these concerns and MANY others have been presented by those seeking answers to the questions your proposal creates. NO ONE amongst the proponents of this proposal have addressed these concerns with the same vigor, time, and space that you are spending discussing your ideas.


In the Tu's irc I was told by one of the proponents that he was willing to risk the unintended consequences and blowback from this change and any resulting failure. That's nice of him !! But how does a TU go back on this proposal and the "other ideas" once you start down that road? IF you think this single proposal has been so hard to accomplish, imagine trying to fix the damage should it backfire on us.

*



No one ever said that this idea was the only good idea. There is

definitely room for more ideas. There is more to be done.




Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel needs "to be done" ?


Bob Finch

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
> In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal in
> fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.

I have been honest and I've tried to provide you with data. You, on the
other hand, have made wild claims about the proposal ruining the system,
etcetera. You have provided no data, and no proof for your claims.

If anything you are the one being dishonest.
Why don't you be honest about the fact that you never gave this proposal
a chance? Your first protests were not about us being dishonest or about
there being no need for increased server resources. They were about the
claim that the TU system never held any value in votes before. That you
were *promised* votes would never mean anything.

When I look back in the mailing list archives to January I can see
the same fanatical mania from you.

From
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-January/000498.html:
> And remember that ANY time to make things more specific and rigid, you
> WILL have unintended consequences and worse a real chance for blow-back
> affecting you personally. It certainly will make the TU position less
> attractive to request and THEN we ALL suffer.

Quite a prophecy. Again, no evidence to your claims.

> > No one ever said that this idea was the only good idea. There is
> > definitely room for more ideas. There is more to be done.

> Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel
> needs "to be done" ?

They've been said already but here are some for you:
1. Clean up [community].
2. Improve community scripts.
3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:
>> Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel
>> needs "to be done" ?
>
> They've been said already but here are some for you:
> 1. Clean up [community].
> 2. Improve community scripts.
> 3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.

Oh there's way more than that. Let me make a point here that Loui,
Callan, Simo, Dan, and myself do the coding work here. As far as I can
tell, all of us prefer this proposal. Keep that in mind - the people
doing work *for you* to make your lives easier, want some moderation
on this system before it gets out of hand. People will *always* abuse
a system with no rules.

You guys are more than free to do whatever you want, but as long as
you're running on the ArchLinux server, using code written by
ArchLinux developers, then our opinions should matter.

Please refrain from replying in novels too - it's too hard to digest.
Being succinct is a skill.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 9:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:

> In short you really have not earned the trust you seek. If this proposal in

> fact passes, it will be in spite of your lack of candor and truthfulness.



I have been honest and I've tried to provide you with data. You, on the

other hand, have made wild claims about the proposal ruining the system,

etcetera. You have provided no data, and no proof for your claims.
YOUR data did NOT support your claims of resource overload. In fact the data you showed was way too simplistic to garner anything from them. I was being polite not mentioning that a second time yesterday. And yeah I mentioned it before. And someone else brought that to your attention too.


As for "wild claims" . I made no claims about "ruining the system". I have however suggested that we will have less freedom and OTHER TUs have pointed out that they will be LESS IMCLINED to spend time contributing. If that means les rather than more as a result of implementing your proposal, well you can call that "wild", but I just would call it likely.


Please let us keep this an honest discussion.

*



If anything you are the one being dishonest.

Why don't you be honest about the fact that you never gave this proposal

a chance? Your first protests were not about us being dishonest or about

there being no need for increased server resources. They were about the

claim that the TU system never held any value in votes before. That you

were *promised* votes would never mean anything.
Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL run across those discussions about the voting being added to the TU/Aur system. At that time we were SPECIFICALLY told that this would not be used for restrictions in the future. Writing about that now is NOT being dishonest. It is rather DIRECTLY related to what you propose.


As for not giving your proposal a chance. Your very correct about that. I CHOOSE not to give it a chance. That is NOT however dishonest either. It is not a bad thing to speak out about a proposal one does not like and sees other way to accomplish the same result.


I am sorry you feel my speaking out is being dishonest.
*



When I look back in the mailing list archives to January I can see

the same fanatical mania from you.



From

http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-January/000498.html:

> And remember that ANY time to make things more specific and rigid, you

> WILL have unintended consequences and worse a real chance for blow-back

> affecting you personally. It certainly will make the TU position less

> attractive to request and THEN we ALL suffer.



Quite a prophecy. Again, no evidence to your claims.
In fact someone within the last two days (I think it was yesterday) wrote exactly that.

It might bear noting that your prophesty is that things will improve with your proposal. Yet those that are using a package and not voting on it will see the opposite of an improvement as far as their usage is concerned. And you HAVE seen people speak up and say they are NOT using the voting system becuase they too see no value in it.


I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your proposal BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like an exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with your proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out that the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric.


You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the repo more "efficient", THEN and ONLY THEN shoudl you be asking us to consider such a proposal.
*



> > No one ever said that this idea was the only good idea. There is

> > definitely room for more ideas. There is more to be done.



> Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel

> needs "to be done" ?



They've been said already but here are some for you:

1. Clean up [community].

2. Improve community scripts.

3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.
I see no need for item no. one. That has been my complaint from the beginning.

ANYTHING else I have pointed out, like the proponents of your proposal talking about impending resource issues has been DIRECTLY related to your bringing that up. I merely responded.


If you lacked candor and/or did not know you were wrong about such things, well that is NOT my fault.
*

Regards;

Bob Finch

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 05:58:47AM -0700, w9ya wrote:

>> Could you please take a moment to fill us in on what other things you feel

>> needs "to be done" ?

>

> They've been said already but here are some for you:

> 1. Clean up [community].

> 2. Improve community scripts.

> 3. Move the repo to a faster SCM.



Oh there's way more than that. Let me make a point here that Loui,

Callan, Simo, Dan, and myself do the coding work here. As far as I can

tell, all of us prefer this proposal. Keep that in mind - the people

doing work *for you* to make your lives easier, want some moderation

on this system before it gets out of hand. People will *always* abuse

a system with no rules.
There has been only one person we have had to deal with by discipline in 5 years. I woudl say that speaks well for the system we currently have.

I was taken to task in the message you make a quote form above for "wild claims", yet you wnat this becuase you are waiting for things to get "out of hand".


Hmmmm.
*



You guys are more than free to do whatever you want, but as long as

you're running on the ArchLinux server, using code written by

ArchLinux developers, then our opinions should matter.
They do matter. And when I have asked YOU for details, you have not illuminated upon them with details. You still speak in generalities and prophesties, while I am being criticized for doing that as a response to your proposal.


When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your entire proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this proposal is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time.


*



Please refrain from replying in novels too - it's too hard to digest.

Being succinct is a skill.
You have been very distinct. But alas that is easy when you do not give details. When I was asked for details I did the polite thing and reply with details. Then within a few days you guys write as it you haven't
seen them yet I am critized for being
too wordy and so forth and so on. <- Nice debating trick, but nothing more. People reading these things can see through that.


**** Look, I have now said this three times. No one is upset at what you do and we ALL appreciate it. And yes we would like to know more details about what you want to do. PLEASE supply them, in detail, and let US decide what should be first. The coding changes SHOULD be first. Alternative proposals, like fund raising dirves to improve the resource WHEN they are ready to be upgraded SHOULD be first. <- Now these are MY thoughts, but others agree with them. They have said so in the past weeks.


And yes the order of when and how these proposals are considered DOES matter.

Is that so hard to accept ?


Regards;

Bob Finch

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote:

> Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be

> possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL

> run across those discussions about the voting being added to the TU/Aur

> system. At that time we were SPECIFICALLY told that this would not be used

> for restrictions in the future. Writing about that now is NOT being

> dishonest. It is rather DIRECTLY related to what you propose.



Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us

probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them.



> As for not giving your proposal a chance. Your very correct about that. I

> CHOOSE not to give it a chance. That is NOT however dishonest either. It is

> not a bad thing to speak out about a proposal one does not like and sees

> other way to accomplish the same result.



You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result.
So you say.

Yes Lou I have proposed something that *will* accomplish the same result.
And without changing anything. And I have mentioned it three times. And you keep denying it.


ONE OF MY PROPOSALS 88SHOULD*8 A PROBLEM BE MANIFEST: SINCE Aaron is using donated funds to improve things, then we should
FIRST be looking at ways to improve that donation system, because there has NOT
been either a targeted or focused fundraising effort to date.



I even told Aaron that I would donate a sum he would be
thrilled to have, he ONLY had to ask me for it here. He has not asked
me. Others have asked me if I was serious about this on the TU irc channel, so the fact that you missed this is telling.



I am sure others, IF ASKED, would do the same as me and donate as needed. And NO, a link onth e home page is NOT the same thing. i.e. If you guys put the same vigor and effort into promoting a fundraising effort, you would have the resources to host all manner of binary packages MUCH AS OTHER DISTROS DO WITHOUT A NEED TO CULL OUT THINGS AS A FIRST STEP.

*



> I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your proposal

> BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like an

> exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with your

> proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out that

> the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric.

>

> You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the repo

> more "efficient", THEN and ONLY THEN shoudl you be asking us to consider

> such a proposal.



I have no problem with using votes as a metric.

Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads.

We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because

they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting

them. They'd probably show similar results anyways.
There is no evidence of what you claim. None presented to us for consideration to date.
*




When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it.

If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you

should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with

the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't

offered anything in cooperation to this discussion.



Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned

about votes here:
Not at all the same thing. And you know it.
*




>From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html

> P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes

> this

> package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the

> community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the

> voting.




Lou, you are NOT anything more than coming off as cute with what you are doing above. How about at least being honest about people NOT wanting your proposal to be a first or even a second consideration for problems. Can you simply acknowledge that ?


I am NOT alone in my crtique.

Regards;

Bob Finch

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:01, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:

<snip>
>
> When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your entire
> proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years
> they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this proposal
> is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time.
<snip>
> Regards;
> Bob Finch

Regarding your claim that things have never gotten out of hand: What
part of the 29-hour downtime caused by the community repo do you not
consider "out of hand"

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 13:01, w9ya <w9ya@qrparci.net> wrote:



<snip>

>

> When I voice an opinion I am told I am making "wild claims", yet your entire

> proposal is based on a claim that things "will get out of hand". In 5 years

> they have not gotten out of hand. IN fact the evidence is that this proposal

> is NOT needed at this time becuase there is NO resource issue at this time.

<snip>

> Regards;

> Bob Finch



Regarding your claim that things have never gotten out of hand: What

part of the 29-hour downtime caused by the community repo do you not

consider "out of hand"


Out of context. As the "wild claims" I was accused of making related to resource issues. (I.e. Stuff like hardware and so forth) I have never made that claim concerning background coding. Lou and I were speaking about the abuse by the TUs of the repo.


Regards;

Bob Finch

P.S... Adopting your proposal will NOT eliminate that kind of outage either. Just delay it. That is unless we all agree to limit the repo to a particular size. That is NOT part of your proposal as it is currently manifest.