On 1/15/20 4:17 PM, michael Bostwick via aur-general wrote: > Hi, > This is my first time writing the mailing list, to be honest I would > have preferred anther way of bringing this up, but *I didn't see an easy > way to bring my concern to someone who's empowered to fix this strong > comment or make it better.* I was looking into a package to solve a complex > programming task when I encountered a rather jarring pinned comment . ( > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libc%2B%2B/#pinned-678768 )
[...] > I really hope no one was banned by the writer of this comment, and I really > hope as trusted users in the future you guys would *be a little more kind* > to members of the aur community. Many linux users may be familiar with > Linus Torvalds writings on his mistakes with EQ, I hope no one in aur has > to experience that. > > For those trusted AUR members that have been kind I say *thank you for your > hard work*, and for those that mean well but are harsh please keep in mind > when you see a package the first thing you see in the pinned comment (and > alot of context that is missed), and that speaks loudly to your impressions > of aur. While there were indeed some good reasons to potentially ban certain participants on that AUR package, it seems like maybe there's some confusion here about who it was meant for. I'd consider it reasonable to clarify it by e.g. adding a preamble: "Hey people, sorry for the interruption if you're just an average AUR user doing their thing. But if you're one of the handful of people causing an utter ruckus here recently, I'm afraid we'll need to have a PSA. The rest of you can return to your regularly scheduled usage of the AUR." The original comment was somewhat context-sensitive with regard to the actual content it addressed, which was indeed atrocious and deserved to be described as atrocious. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
