On 28/10/2018 01:40, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > On 10/27/18 6:12 PM, Christos Nouskas wrote: >> I've been with Arch since around 2004-5 and I've never seen such a >> hostility against a contributing user. >> >> Konstantin clearly cares about his set of packages because they are >> the tools of his trade and of some of his co-workers (at a >> high-profile institution, not at some pet shop). It's also clear that >> he's not just a packager but also a co-developer of at least some of >> the software set. It's only normal for him to be concerned about the >> way this package group is handled, given the importance of its >> applications. That also was the very reason he applied for a TU. > That's... fine? I mean, there's lots of people for whom the tools of > their trade *at high-profile institutions* are php, openssl, nginx, gcc, > or numerous others. I'm sure they're very concerned about these things > working properly. > > I don't regard Arch Linux as a *toy* of an operating system, fit only > for idleness and hobby time. > > Appropriately, therefore, I treat all, or at least the majority, of Arch > packages as important things which Arch users in general and > specifically, should be concerned about. I guess there are games which > are unlikely to be of job-related importance, but most packages are > important to at least some subset of users, or we wouldn't be so eager > to package them. > > I therefore do not ascribe any explicit importance or special > consideration to anyone's job. > > Furthermore, we have a very well working bugtracker within which the > many people who use Arch Linux in professional, and yes, sometimes > high-profile environments, frequently communicate their concerns about > the packaging of particular software packages. This is called due > process. It's something you don't need to be a TU in order to do. If the > only conceivable way to to contribute to Arch was to become a TU, we'd > have a very small and insignificant distro indeed. > > To this date, I'm unaware of the fundamental purpose of the bugtracker > failing our professional, high-profile users. > >> Now, even if he had been over-zealous about it, justifiably so in >> many's opinions, he had been a far cry from whining or implying >> oppression or telling bald-faced lies or being a control-freak - jeez, >> why such strong expressions? I read the word "implying" numerous times >> in the bashing posts and some arguments (not all, for sure) were even >> based on Konstantin's "hidden insinuations", not his actual arguments. >> >> Mistakes do happen and I doubt that being a TU means being infallible >> or indisputable. But watching a man getting severely reprimanded over >> some petty mistakes, which had resulted from over-zealousness and not >> mal-intent, is just sad. > It is pretty darn hard to make a mistake about whether you yourself have > done three things when you only actually did two. > > 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. > > 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? > I repeatedly explain that we are willing to reopen any bug that has a > reopen request, without needing some sort of mailing list drama to force > our hands. > > But a month later, he continues to assert that the dates on the email > thread *prove* that I only reopened the bug after his thread, with a > pretty obvious logical conclusion that this fact is somehow relevant and > therefore pertains to my own hidden motivations. I also never said or implied any hidden motivations on your side. I am the person constantly being accused of having hidden malicious intent and being a whiny passive aggressive baby. I was told by Doug that I whine and my whining didn't do anything. I maintain that I sent an email with questions on Sunday evening when I had time to, so I can give time for people to see it and respond when they want. I did not put 'urgent' in the title and I did not imply it was supposed to be - I explained why I care personally. I listed what I saw and asked what to do. I continue to assert that the backlash I received was disproportionate (as I showed from examples from other people's responses) and I have continued to defend myself since then. > I dislike the idea of encouraging a general perception in the Arch Linux > community that anyone who files a bug report should also start some > mailing list thread to ensure we actually respond to the bug report. If > for no other reason than that we have 60,000 historic bugs, many of > which are still open, and people would get pretty bored and stop reading > the mailing list if it just became a copy of the bugtracker. 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.' - 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'. 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. >> Especially because it comes from the very people who advised him to >> apply as a TU and that man is now appealing to. > I did *not* advise him to become a TU, and I don't recall anyone > publicly doing so on the mailing list at least. > > I did direct him to the due process for doing so, but that is not proof > positive that I encourage and support his application... I would do the > same for literally anyone whatsoever, even if that person was the CEO of > Microsoft, a core member of some particularly ill-regarded Arch > derivative like Manjaro, or an unabashedly public member of some > three-letter spy agency who blogged every day about the noble cause of > weakening security and injecting spyware into Linux distributions. > > Everyone deserves the chance to try and be convincing to the general > class of Trusted Users, whether I personally feel convinced or not. In > fact, everyone deserves the right to try and be convincing even if no > one feels convinced.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature