[arch-general] Fwd: [arch-dev-public] pkgstats: first results

[w9ya]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:11 PM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
> >> > The TU system was a DIRECT outgrowth of the earlier efforts to find a
> >> > place
> >> > for users with significant output to be hosted BY the archlinux
> systems
> >>
> >> This is about the hundredth time I've seen the "this is how it used to
> >> be" argument. It's stupid. I don't care how the TU system used to be.
> >> I don't. I care about how the TU system *is*. So let's talk about the
> >> present, and not the past please.
> >>
> >> I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and
> >> changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits
> >> your ideals better.
> >
> > Aaron; this issue does not concern merely myself. Nor is the history
> merely
> > a personal item. I have *ONLY* spoken about the goals as well as the
> > structure that was implemented to achieve these goals in my history
> > missives. And OF COURSE that SHOULD BE important as it *IS* the reason
> > things are constituted as they are.
> >
> > As I said in an earlier post, if YOU want to change things, you certainly
> > can. No one will stop you. You are the nominal leader.
> >
> > If you do not like my posting about what reasons are the basis for why
> > things are as they are, you can certainly speak out in the manner you
> have
> > immediately above. But short of "kicking me out" that will not matter
> much
> > to me as it is not the purpose for our discussion.
> >
> > One small piece of advice; if you decide to ask people that disagree with
> > you to consider leaving, please be sure to make a list of such people;
> > prepared before you do ask them to consider leaving.  Then, and only
> then,
> > do your "asking"  ALL at once. Someone much wiser than myself told me
> that
> > to ask people to leave a small number at a time leaves you with enemies
> > within your mists that will choose to worry about their own issues
> INSTEAD
> > of your own. As a leader of men and women you should be aware of that.
> >
> > Otherwise please be less strident, as it will serve you better.
>
> I never asked anyone to leave. You're putting quite a lot of words in
> my mouth. The point is that as the TU system "used to be", there was
> no AUR, no community repo, nothing. It was a collection of remote
> repos that were collected in a wiki page. Then we got a unified repo
> (incoming, and later community), and then everything else was built on
> top of it.


Well asking me consider other things elsewhere ala this quoted from above;

" I don't care about WHY things were instituted. They've grown and
changed. If you're not happy with it, then start a new group that fits
your ideals better." AFTER saying that my discussion items were "stupid".
It sure seems like you saying that this is a stupid discussion and I should
go elsewhere if I am not happy.

BESIDES I used the wording "if" that was what you meant. I really only saw
angry in your post.

(AND I have seen people fired just this way.)

Nope. Not a wiki page and NOT a collection in diverse locations as a start.
I described this elsewhere earlier today. Please go re-read it.

But yes, things were built on top of it. However until this point today, no
one has successfully mutated the TU/community system into a statistic
driven/based system. My history lesson was designed to point this out. I
said as much about the promises that were made about how the voting was
meant to be used and what it would NOT be used for.

For the record, and as you know becuase you participated a bit the last
time, this idea of morphing the voting system into a pre-requisite of sorts
was chanllenged within the last two years BECAUSE of the history lessons
myself AND OTHERS brought out.

I am truly sorry if this annoys you enough to call discussing the history of
earlier AUR stuff: "it's stupid", but it really does have bearing.right now.


> Simply put: you can keep talking about how the system "used to be" as
> much as you want, but understand that that was BEFORE the AUR and
> BEFORE we had so many people doing these things. As with any body of
> people, the higher the population, the harder it is to keep tabs on
> things. With 5 TUs, it's easy to say "do what you want", but when we
> get the numbers we have today, rules need to be used.
>

Nope. It was/am taliking about why things are the way they are NOW as well.
TUs are allowed discretion BY DESIGN.


> Rather than sitting here saying "We never used to have rules! Oh em
> gee!", we can do two things: change the existing rules, or start a new
> body of people who are ungoverned.


Yes, **you** can change the rules. However you should seek to be sure that
you are doing so for good reasons, not just 'a reason'. Be sure to take the
time to allow for discussion and NOT call such discussion "stupid", as
ignoring someone else's imput will generally lead to unintended
consequences. If nothing else ignoring history means you cannot make a fully
imformed diecision. Wiser minds than my own have taught me at least that.


>
>
> In suggesting another group that is ungoverned in the way you suggest,
> I was not saying "leave this one and start your own". I was saying "do
> both and compare"
>

O.k.... well try to not be so strident with things like "It's stupid" when
someone tells you about reasons and goals and results. That may be "history"
lesson, but it also may just hold something you have not considered because
you did not know of it.

Best regards;

Bob Finch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20081110/b8bb1b71/attachment.htm>