Benjamin Andresen | 1 Jun 2006 06:46

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

* Aaron Griffin (aaronmgriffin@...) wrote:
> There's no shame/flame-war potential in saying "Well, PersonX did this
> and broke this and screwed up here" during the discussion period.

I think there is shame potential. Which is also my greatest fear on this
open discussion thing. (I already outlined that in my other reply.)
Plus I do think that especially in this community there is flame-war
potential if you try to hinder somebody who is genuinely interested in
helping the community to become better. I mean, it even makes sense to
object there.

Being a community project you would want it to become better and better.
Having a small group of people with impossible requirements will just be
elitist and don't improve over time.

I hope I got my point across on that matter in my other replies... And
that the issue has been brought up now will get people to be more open
for discussion.  One way or the other.

Andresen's law:
Say something bad about a TU-apprentice and a group of ninjas will flame
you to death.

--

-- 
Benjamin Andresen
Benjamin Andresen | 1 Jun 2006 07:28

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

* Philip Dillon-Thiselton (dibblethewrecker@...) wrote:
> So I'm basically saying that voting/not voting for or sponsoring a TU based
> only on experience of them in one environment is a teeny bit perlious and
> therefore I don't think it would hurt to further encourage potential TUs to
> become more broadly involved before being officially sponsored.

Broadly involved means what?

One can be known without hanging out on the forums, just look at
shastry/dejari. They both have very few posts on the forums and still
are known to the public. (Yes, I took post counts as an example! Evil!)

This means that they got sponsored because of one / maximum two
environments. I don't know if that constitutes broad.

I have never seen i.e. TomUK on IRC. Maybe he was there, but he was
certainly not active. His forum/ML presentation is great on the other
hand.

phrakture (to take an extreme case) is active in all three
environments... And if that is the broad environment you're requiring
then good luck sister. ;-)

My point is that broad environment is overrated. Let the people do what
they like, and if they excel in their environment they are suited for
the TU position.

I've left out the wiki and the bugtracker. Because the bugtracker is
mainly used by the developer.
Writing documentation in the wiki is also important, but I don't know
(Continue reading)

Philip Dillon-Thiselton | 1 Jun 2006 18:30
Picon

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

On 31/05/06, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

On 5/31/06, Philip Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> If you want people to be more honest you need to give them an environment
> that they can be honest in.  I said that ages ago and people said it wasn't
> transparent enough, it was too secretive and potentially elitest.  I think
> there must still be some solution though.

Yeah, I get that and I get the whole "IRC is the devil" thing - my
main point in bringing this up was not to call anyone out, but more
like a "Hey, in the future, let's try to do this"

This isn't an issue, for me, with the "Trusted" part.  My problem is
that no one said anything.... if someone would have said "Oh well dsa
hacked my box!" I would have voted "No" too.

I'm not trying to say "OMG you voted no you losers!", I'm trying to
say - hey, if there's a reason you're voting "No", let us know.  I,
personally, would love to know these reasons, as they may have swayed
my voting.  There's no shame/flame-war potential in saying "Well,
PersonX did this and broke this and screwed up here" during the
discussion period.

However, no one discussed crap.  So it was more like "hey here's this
guy" "NO!" - I saw no rationale, no debate, no nothing.  So, because
of that, I assume that there _is_ no rational reason for voting "no"
other than something like "omg we have enough TUs" or other non-sense.

If this is the case, then we have a problem.  That is all I'm trying
to say.  If you just flat out don't care, abstain.  If you have an
issue, bring it up.  But if there's no reason for it, don't vote "no"
just because....

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users-fd97jBR+K/6hPH1hqNUYSQ@public.gmane.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users


Erm - I'm not quite sure how I provoked all that out of you but you already know how I feel about no votes, discussion of them and the ML, an opinion which you have virtually echoed here. 

I totally agree that where there is empirical evidence of poor pkg/breakage/etc we could all use seeing it but I think you are right to suggest that in 99% of cases evidence of "badness" isn't the reason for a "no" vote - it's obviously something else.

Is the question really then, what should you legitimately vote "no" on?  Personal dislike, hunches, trolly behaviour?  I certainly _don't_ want to see people publically denigrated but if I have a hunch that someone is not "shooting straight dice" how can I share that concern without igniting the mother of all flame wars?  Discuss it with a few others in private?  How is that then transparent?

I'm not asking you for answers, Phrak, I'd actually like to hear what the silent majority think for a change.
_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users
Philip Dillon-Thiselton | 1 Jun 2006 18:38
Picon

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

On 01/06/06, Benjamin Andresen <benny-8+CkUClJqaCb9/CCa1Sigw@public.gmane.org> wrote:

* Philip Dillon-Thiselton (dibblethewrecker-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org) wrote:
> So I'm basically saying that voting/not voting for or sponsoring a TU based
> only on experience of them in one environment is a teeny bit perlious and
> therefore I don't think it would hurt to further encourage potential TUs to
> become more broadly involved before being officially sponsored.

Broadly involved means what?

One can be known without hanging out on the forums, just look at
shastry/dejari. They both have very few posts on the forums and still
are known to the public. (Yes, I took post counts as an example! Evil!)

This means that they got sponsored because of one / maximum two
environments. I don't know if that constitutes broad.

I have never seen i.e. TomUK on IRC. Maybe he was there, but he was
certainly not active. His forum/ML presentation is great on the other
hand.

Define "broadly involved": at least occasionally active within two or more environments and preferably very active in one.

Satisfied? You prove my point for me.  We have had TUs proposed who's first significant contribution outside IRC was to say why they wanted to be a TU _after_ they had been sponsored.  So, if you want specifics, there you go: it's patently daft.

phrakture (to take an extreme case) is active in all three
environments... And if that is the broad environment you're requiring
then good luck sister. ;-)

My point is that broad environment is overrated. Let the people do what
they like, and if they excel in their environment they are suited for
the TU position.

I agree but my point was that even if you are a legend in your own lunchtime while chilling on IRC that won't help you when it comes to a vote (the issue we are discussing) if _some_ people have no idea who you are!  Fair enough not everyone needs to know who you are for you to be elected but then we _must_ expect some disenting votes even if they are purely from a "who the hell are you?" reaction.

I've left out the wiki and the bugtracker. Because the bugtracker is
mainly used by the developer.
Writing documentation in the wiki is also important, but I don't know
much about only-wiki people, to have an informed opinion.

I see the TUs as a quality assurance. If a TU says something in his
environment it's usually not bullshit. That's why you got the arch on
the forums as well, I guess. (There are people that want to help, but
just don't get it right... The ambition is there, but the knowledge
isn't.)

This was a comparable long post to just say abstain if you don't have
experience with them in the environment they are at home.

Prospective TUs used to be encouraged to participate in the TU ML before seeking a sponsor, much as you are now, Benny, but it seems that that unwritten "guideline" has been phased out and instead been replaced by, well, I dunno what.

Let's look at it another way: which TUs do you see taking an active part in discussions of TU "lore"?  Certainly not all of them.  How many TUs are even taking part in this discussion, which is surely in all our interests?  Three I count.  Out of what? 17ish?

I know some TUs no better today than I did the day their sponsorship was announced: is that a good thing?  Is it important for us to all know each other?  Are we team or a collection of individuals under one common banner?  I have no idea any more but it seems to me that the answer to "why don't people say negatve things about people in discussion" is inextricably connected to all of that.

The reason no one discusses anything is because they aren't obliged to.  If you try to oblige people it upsets them - if you create an initial set of obligations you exclude people that can't easily meet those obligations, then people start calling you elitest.

Would anyone now even be brave enough to propose a radical change to the system?  It seems pretty clear that the TU group is too fragmented to make collective decisions.  Maybe we should reconsider the sponsorship and discussion process or, as Benny suggests, just embrace the utter collapse into indifference?

--
Benjamin Andresen

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users-fd97jBR+K/6hPH1hqNUYSQ@public.gmane.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users
leslie.polzer | 1 Jun 2006 19:24
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)


On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Philip Dillon-Thiselton wrote:

> Is the question really then, what should you legitimately vote "no"
> on? Personal dislike, hunches, trolly behaviour? I certainly _don't_
> want to see people publically denigrated but if I have a hunch that
> someone is not "shooting straight dice" how can I share that concern
> without igniting the mother of all flame wars? Discuss it with a few
> others in private? How is that then transparent?
My advice is just to voice your opinion -- that should be well-designed,
of course -- and, if needed, risk your reputation.  Take the fire.  But
I already said that before IIRC.

> I'm not asking you for answers, Phrak, I'd actually like to hear what
> the silent majority think for a change.
  The issue with the "silent majority" also surfaced on the last vote,
the bylaw amendment. However, I decided not to complain about missing
discussion; yes, the vote got lots of "no" votes, but at least there
was *some* discussion. Some people said it were "over-legislation", and
I suppose the others just jumped on that train. No need to announce
that publicly, right? Although constructive criticism and suggestions
would be better for sure. Well, no need to discuss this here in any more
length. Just thought I'd mention it because it is related.

  As for the TU election process -- yes, it should most likely be
revised. But who's going to do it? With the majority not interested in
any debate, how can anything productive happen?

  Here's a draft anyway: a sponsoring person and a discussion period of
a few days should be required, but that's all. Maybe give everyone a
veto right that they should use very sparingly. If a person breaks stuff
on purpose, he should be removed from the team.

  Thanks for reading. 

    Leslie (dejari)

--

-- 
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x52D70289
http://nic-nac-project.de/~skypher/
_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users
Douglas Andrade | 2 Jun 2006 00:26
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

On 6/1/06, leslie.polzer@...
<leslie.polzer@...> wrote:

>   As for the TU election process -- yes, it should most likely be
> revised. But who's going to do it? With the majority not interested in
> any debate, how can anything productive happen?

In fact, it does not happen.

>   Here's a draft anyway: a sponsoring person and a discussion period of
> a few days should be required.

Yep. Inspired by your ideas, i propose a irc meeting with the TUs, so
they can ask the tu-wannabe some questions reguarding AUR, package
making, experience and so on.

That is a good way to know the tu-wannabe and know his/her current
skills and in this time you can discover something about the
tu-wannabe personality by the way he/she answer the questions.

It may look intrusive, but imho, it is a good way to know at least
something about the tu-wannabe.

>, but that's all. Maybe give everyone a
> veto right that they should use very sparingly. If a person breaks stuff
> on purpose, he should be removed from the team.

Yeah, but how to tell when things broke on purpose ? I think that is
not a easy thing to tell/discover.
Eric Belanger | 2 Jun 2006 02:29
Picon

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Douglas Andrade wrote:

> On 6/1/06, leslie.polzer@...
<leslie.polzer@...> wrote:
>
> >   As for the TU election process -- yes, it should most likely be
> > revised. But who's going to do it? With the majority not interested in
> > any debate, how can anything productive happen?
>
> In fact, it does not happen.

If we want more discussion, we need to first focus on the voting
participation. Although some people voted no without any discussion, at
least they voted. We could go back at the last votes and I'm pretty sure
some active TU didn't voted. Some names would probably come up several
times.  When we updated the list of TU for the last bylaw vote, it was
discovered that a TU didn't even had his voting permission for the forum
and he never asked for it!  If there is a group of TU who don't even
bother to vote, how can we expect them to participate in discussion?

IMHO, we should start by making sure that every active TU votes.
Perhaps, we should send warnings (or kick them out?) to TU who don't do
their voting duties.

>
> >   Here's a draft anyway: a sponsoring person and a discussion period of
> > a few days should be required.
>
> Yep. Inspired by your ideas, i propose a irc meeting with the TUs, so
> they can ask the tu-wannabe some questions reguarding AUR, package
> making, experience and so on.
>
> That is a good way to know the tu-wannabe and know his/her current
> skills and in this time you can discover something about the
> tu-wannabe personality by the way he/she answer the questions.
>
> It may look intrusive, but imho, it is a good way to know at least
> something about the tu-wannabe.

I would keep the voting process as is, for now.  Let's hope that the
current discussion has highlighted the importance of the discussion
period and that on the next vote there will be a real discussion.  If the
same issue repeats itself, then we'll think about possible changes.

The irc meeting won't change anything. Asking questions, etc can be done
via the ML. If someone don't want to discuss on the ML, he won't discuss
it in irc.  The irc would be more trouble because everyone is in a
different timezone and has different schedule.

On a second thought, an informal irc meeting might be a nice addition to
the ML as it's more interactive. If the TU candidate want to have one, I
don't see any problem. The log could be make available  to the ML.

>
> >, but that's all. Maybe give everyone a
> > veto right that they should use very sparingly. If a person breaks stuff
> > on purpose, he should be removed from the team.

The veto right won't work, IMO. There is too many persons.  Reaching an
unanimous agreement would nearly be impossible. Usually, in situations
where there is a veto, only one or a few persons have the veto.

>
> Yeah, but how to tell when things broke on purpose ? I think that is
> not a easy thing to tell/discover.

Sure, it's hard to tell. However, if it happens too often, we could
question that TU technical skills.

BTW, if people don't want to discuss, there's not much we can do. Maybe
making the votes not anonymous anymore or asking TU to explain their
voted. But if we're too strict, TU would stop voting or quit the TU team
and we wouldn't be more advanced.

Perhaps, keeping an open and friendly environnemnt on the ML so people are
comfortable to bring in delicate matters would solve the problem. :)

Snowman.

>
> _______________________________________________
> tur-users mailing list
> tur-users@...
> http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

--

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
leslie.polzer | 2 Jun 2006 11:43
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Vote: Douglas Andrade (dsa)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 08:29:53PM -0400, Eric Belanger wrote:

> IMHO, we should start by making sure that every active TU votes.
> Perhaps, we should send warnings (or kick them out?) to TU who don't
> do their voting duties.
Good point, given that there's also the possibility to set oneself
inactive.

> The irc meeting won't change anything. Asking questions, etc can be
> done via the ML. If someone don't want to discuss on the ML, he won't
> discuss it in irc. The irc would be more trouble because everyone is
> in a different timezone and has different schedule.
>
> On a second thought, an informal irc meeting might be a nice addition
> to the ML as it's more interactive. If the TU candidate want to have
> one, I don't see any problem. The log could be make available to the
> ML.
Yes.  I have nothing more to add to those two paragraphs.

> The veto right won't work, IMO. There is too many persons. Reaching an
> unanimous agreement would nearly be impossible. Usually, in situations
> where there is a veto, only one or a few persons have the veto.
This may be right for bylaw amendmends and other delicate things (well,
at least some people seem to think BAs are always delicate), but it's
not that usual to get "no" votes for TU candidates.

> BTW, if people don't want to discuss, there's not much we can do.
> Maybe making the votes not anonymous anymore or asking TU to explain
> their voted.
What I would like to see is that people who voted "no" on the last two
things (dsa, latest BA) explain their reasons for doing so without
voicing their opinion in the discussion period.

  I don't propose this because I'm eager to bash anyone.  Instead, I am
sincerely interested in their reasons.

> Perhaps, keeping an open and friendly environnemnt on the ML so people
> are comfortable to bring in delicate matters would solve the problem.
Sure.  How can this environment be facilitated?

  Leslie

--

-- 
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x52D70289
http://nic-nac-project.de/~skypher/
_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users@...
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users
Роман Кирилич | 2 Jun 2006 12:25
Picon

Will anyone take ownership of openntpd package?

Hello!

openntpd package in [community] is orphaned and outdated. It also
won't work with newest openssl.
I have updated PKGBUILD for it. Should I post it here or in AUR comments?
I cannot take ownership of it, because it is in [community] and I'm
not a TUR (yet).
James | 2 Jun 2006 12:56
Picon

Re: Will anyone take ownership of openntpd package?

On 6/2/06, Роман Кирилич <roman.kyrylych <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> openntpd package in [community] is orphaned and outdated. It also
> won't work with newest openssl.
> I have updated PKGBUILD for it. Should I post it here or in AUR comments?
> I cannot take ownership of it, because it is in [community] and I'm
> not a TUR (yet).

packages in community must be compiled against [current] anyway. i'll
take it on, or at least until it's owner picks it up.

James

--

-- 
iphitus - Beyond Maintainer, Arch Trusted User, Arch Developer.
Home:iphitus.loudas.com
_______________________________________________
tur-users mailing list
tur-users <at> archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/tur-users

Gmane