On 1/15/20 5:35 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > 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.
FWIW: I've updated that comment for clarity and tweaked wording, which I hope now makes it a lot clearer what it is a response to (I ended up making a couple more change than I had initially). Feedback is welcome. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
