[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/28/18 4:45 PM, Morten Linderud via aur-general wrote:
> It's frankly embarrassing that it has to go this far. Eli is avoiding the
> discussion on IRC and refuses to answer.

So, is the appropriate fix then, is to do some more shaming on the
mailing list? Actually, by the time things got going there, you could
have seen something very interesting in the join/part messages:

You'll see my internet connection going kaput. I have had really bad
internet over the weekends recently, and I spend most of my time pinging
out.

IRC, as a synchronous communication medium, is simply unreliable, and we
shouldn't expect anyone to be online 24/7. Especially when your only
proof that I am online is that my bouncer is online.

Do you suppose I derive personal amusement and enjoyment from this
fight? No! It happened because I care too *much*. And quite frankly, I'm
no more thrilled about how I handled things in the heat of the moment
than no doubt many readers.

I ultimately ended up pretending the internet didn't exist for much of
Sunday, my active activity of being present in-channel consisted of
like one comment at 10AM. I drafted two fairly tame emails and one in
which I tried to back down on the aggression and clarify my thought
process re: why I was so upset, and I queued those to be sent "whenever
my email client decides it's online again". (Reconnecting to my IRC
bouncer today I see that I was promptly accused of ignoring the
conversation. Please remember that email, unlike IRC, is asynchronous
communication.) I then tried to relax and cool down, ended up going to
sleep several hours earlier than the earliest time I usually go to sleep.

Morten: I have a lot of respect for your involvement in many initiatives
around Arch. But honestly, I often feel that you are taking the
discussion to another extreme, on making absolutely anyone feel as
utterly welcome as humanly possible and then some and then some more, as
the primary goal. It's the other side of the coin and we shouldn't allow
situations when one stays silent instead of criticizing an application
to avoid backlash. Or indeed just staying silent in general.

On 10/30/18 8:27 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> Hi Santiago,
> 
> Now that the discussion period is over, I am taking time to fully answer
> this, since it's much more general and important than the TU application
> itself.
>
>> On 28-10-18, Santiago Torres-Arias wrote:>> I've been following this email 
>> thread quite closely and without
>> participating as I was hoping to keep opinions to myself --- I don't
>> think I have much questions other than what's already asked for
>> Konstantin --- and make up my mind for voting.
>> 
>> It's clear that it is time to take a step back and stop fanning the
>> flames. We are all passionate people, and sometimes this passion leads
>> us to the type of arguments we are having right now. I agree with Eli,
>> this is not a toy operating system and there are things at stake.
>> However, I'm completely convinced that no ill intention is coming from
>> everyone involved, and that, if we consider this optic, it's clear that
>> this is just a non-technical quarrel that should've been shelved a while
>> ago.
>> 
>> Personally, I think this is a good opportunity to tone it down for a
>> second, leave the 10+ emails behind us and try to go back to the things
>> that make this community friendly and welcoming.
>> 
>> Baptiste, Konstantin, Eli, and Doug. Please take a deep breath and
>> extend a friendly handshake. I'm sure everyone else following this
>> exchnage thinks this is the reasonable way to move forward.
>
> I understand that you want to calm things down and the intention is good,
> but you make it appear as if the animosity is symmetrical.  But the
> situation is actually not: we have two bullies ganging up violently on a
> newcomer, who has so far kept a very cool head and stayed polite where
> most people would have gotten angry.  On my side I reacted more angrily
> because I am getting fed up with this kind of repeated toxic attitude, and
> other people expressed dismay at the violent personal attacks we
> witnessed.
> 
> Note that here I am not making any judgement on the validity of the
> arguments in the various technical debates: this is important but it is
> not the point here.  The point is precisely to be able to have interesting
> discussions and debates, without resorting to personal attacks, insults or
> abusing a dominating position, as both Doug and Eli have repeatedly done
> in the past and now again:
> 
> 
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034287.html
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-October/034402.html
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-October/034408.html
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-October/034411.html
> 
> This is not a witch-hunt: Doug and Eli, this discussion does *not*
> question your attachment to this community, the 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

On October 28, 2018 6:42:09 PM EDT, Santiago Torres-Arias 
 wrote:
>Hello everyone.
>
>I've been following this email thread quite closely and without
>participating as I was hoping to keep opinions to myself --- I don't
>think I have much questions other than what's already asked for
>Konstantin --- and make up my mind for voting.
>
>It's clear that it is time to take a step back and stop fanning the
>flames. We are all passionate people, and sometimes this passion leads
>us to the type of arguments we are having right now. I agree with Eli,
>this is not a toy operating system and there are things at stake.
>However, I'm completely convinced that no ill intention is coming from
>everyone involved, and that, if we consider this optic, it's clear that
>this is just a non-technical quarrel that should've been shelved a
>while
>ago.
>
>Personally, I think this is a good opportunity to tone it down for a
>second, leave the 10+ emails behind us and try to go back to the things
>that make this community friendly and welcoming.
>
>Baptiste, Konstantin, Eli, and Doug. Please take a deep breath and
>extend a friendly handshake. I'm sure everyone else following this
>exchnage thinks this is the reasonable way to move forward.
>
>-Santiago.

I appreciate the sentiment, but Please don't downplay known toxic behavior that 
needs to come to an end. That doesn't help the cause of making this a friendly 
and welcoming community. Konstantin has clearly extended an olive branch time 
and time again.

-- 
Best,
polyzen

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

On October 28, 2018 6:42:09 PM EDT, Santiago Torres-Arias 
 wrote:
>Hello everyone.
>
>I've been following this email thread quite closely and without
>participating as I was hoping to keep opinions to myself --- I don't
>think I have much questions other than what's already asked for
>Konstantin --- and make up my mind for voting.
>
>It's clear that it is time to take a step back and stop fanning the
>flames. We are all passionate people, and sometimes this passion leads
>us to the type of arguments we are having right now. I agree with Eli,
>this is not a toy operating system and there are things at stake.
>However, I'm completely convinced that no ill intention is coming from
>everyone involved, and that, if we consider this optic, it's clear that
>this is just a non-technical quarrel that should've been shelved a
>while
>ago.
>
>Personally, I think this is a good opportunity to tone it down for a
>second, leave the 10+ emails behind us and try to go back to the things
>that make this community friendly and welcoming.
>
>Baptiste, Konstantin, Eli, and Doug. Please take a deep breath and
>extend a friendly handshake. I'm sure everyone else following this
>exchnage thinks this is the reasonable way to move forward.
>
>-Santiago.

I appreciate the sentiment, but Please don't downplay known toxic behavior that 
needs to come to an end. That doesn't help the cause of making this a friendly 
and welcoming community. Konstantin has clearly extended an olive branch time 
and time again.

-- 
Best,
polyzen

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general]

Hello everyone.

I've been following this email thread quite closely and without
participating as I was hoping to keep opinions to myself --- I don't
think I have much questions other than what's already asked for
Konstantin --- and make up my mind for voting.

It's clear that it is time to take a step back and stop fanning the
flames. We are all passionate people, and sometimes this passion leads
us to the type of arguments we are having right now. I agree with Eli,
this is not a toy operating system and there are things at stake.
However, I'm completely convinced that no ill intention is coming from
everyone involved, and that, if we consider this optic, it's clear that
this is just a non-technical quarrel that should've been shelved a while
ago.

Personally, I think this is a good opportunity to tone it down for a
second, leave the 10+ emails behind us and try to go back to the things
that make this community friendly and welcoming.

Baptiste, Konstantin, Eli, and Doug. Please take a deep breath and
extend a friendly handshake. I'm sure everyone else following this
exchnage thinks this is the reasonable way to move forward.

-Santiago.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Morten Linderud via aur-general]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 04:02:40PM -0400, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general 
wrote:
> It's upsetting and embarrassing that the only staffer to stand against this
> behavior directly in the ML is the applicant's sponsor. This disrespectful
> behavior occurs all the time. Can we enforce our Code of Conduct or is it just
> for show?

It's frankly embarrassing that it has to go this far. Eli is avoiding the
discussion on IRC and refuses to answer.

-- 
Morten Linderud
PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Jerome Leclanche]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:03 PM Daniel M. Capella via aur-general
 wrote:
>
> On October 28, 2018 2:42:31 PM EDT, Baptiste Jonglez 
>  wrote:
> >On 28-10-18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> >> (endless rambling)
> >
> >Can we please stop this futile bike-shedding exercise?  It does little
> >outside of discrediting you and the Arch community as a whole.
> >
> >I already said so in previous discussions, but I am still dismayed at
> >your
> >and Doug's tendency to aggressively gang up on anybody crossing your
> >way,
> >assuming from the start that they are lying bastards with devious
> >motives,
> >without ever questioning your own assumptions or actions.  You
> >desperately
> >want to always be right and to always have the final word, but I'm
> >sorry
> >to say that life does not work this way.
> >
> >Regarding the TU application itself, the discussion period is nearly
> >over.
> >Since the bylaws mention that the period lasts 14 "full days", I will
> >open
> >the vote tomorrow morning.
> >
> >Baptiste
>
> It's upsetting and embarrassing that the only staffer to stand against this 
> behavior directly in the ML is the applicant's sponsor. This disrespectful 
> behavior occurs all the time. Can we enforce our Code of Conduct or is it 
> just for show?
>
> --
> Best,
> polyzen


To reiterate my position on this more clearly as I did on IRC: I don't
think it's OK to treat an applicant like this, regardless of the
applicant's behaviour. As for previous claims that "Konstantin's
attitude is a problem" or, that in a previous email one would not
"want to have to deal with [Konstantin] on the team", this thread has
shown the absolute opposite. Konstantin has reacted very
professionally to extreme, petty bikeshedding that completely
detracted from legitimate feedback; that's the kind of level-headed
attitude I do want to have on the team. I know what my vote will be.

J. Leclanche

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

On October 28, 2018 2:42:31 PM EDT, Baptiste Jonglez 
 wrote:
>On 28-10-18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
>> (endless rambling)
>
>Can we please stop this futile bike-shedding exercise?  It does little
>outside of discrediting you and the Arch community as a whole.
>
>I already said so in previous discussions, but I am still dismayed at
>your
>and Doug's tendency to aggressively gang up on anybody crossing your
>way,
>assuming from the start that they are lying bastards with devious
>motives,
>without ever questioning your own assumptions or actions.  You
>desperately
>want to always be right and to always have the final word, but I'm
>sorry
>to say that life does not work this way.
>
>Regarding the TU application itself, the discussion period is nearly
>over.
>Since the bylaws mention that the period lasts 14 "full days", I will
>open
>the vote tomorrow morning.
>
>Baptiste

It's upsetting and embarrassing that the only staffer to stand against this 
behavior directly in the ML is the applicant's sponsor. This disrespectful 
behavior occurs all the time. Can we enforce our Code of Conduct or is it just 
for show?

-- 
Best,
polyzen

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/28/18 2:21 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> The problem I see is in your mindset -- I don't think you approach
> packaging with due respect for quality.

Okay, enough about packaging, what about dealing with bugs?

Bugs you've opened in the past, 25 in total:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?opened=22733[]=

Duplicates of existing bugs:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51419
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/52308
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/53581
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49000
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51246

Bugs that could not be reproduced:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50186
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57712

User error bugs/not a bug:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51696
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56653
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56490
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51247
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49029
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60248 (the recent python2-awkward one)
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60247 (the other python-awkward bug)

Suggestion to modify core packages in non-vanilla ways instead of
relying on AUR packages that are customized to the user's needs:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/50054

3 bugs were closed as upstream, not much to do about that.
5 were true bugs and fixed (or pending).
1 was a feature request.

...

15/25 not good track record, with rather a lot of reports that simply
weren't correct at all.

Particularly eye-raising were:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/60248 -- report bug because we only
moved one package to [community], not two

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/51247 -- misconfigured AUR package
breaks python interpreter, reports bug

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49029 -- reports bug for mainline kernel
installed from AUR

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57639 -- I'm rather skeptical of your
interaction when resolving this bug, particularly your attempts to
"solve" problems by selectively installing packages from [testing], then
installing a package from [staging]!!!

Ignoring comments on the bug where someone else figured out the issue,
adding fuzz comments that distract from solving anything while you argue
over whether you should be allowed to report bugs for [staging] packages
because "it is clear to all of us that not having libx265 has absolutely
nothing to do with the issue", even though that's missing the point
because we explicitly hide the staging repos from *everyone* because
they're not supposed to be used.


Based on your limited interaction in the bugtracker, you seem to have a
predisposition towards getting your system into an unsupported state
(AUR/staging) and then having problems. In a couple cases you simply
failed to read documentation and decided the package was broken as a
result of your misunderstanding.

Once again, you've ended up doing things which are completely invalid,
because [staging] is just not something anyone does, ever, for any
reasons whatsoever. The only reason to put something into staging in the
first place is if it's 100% broken and is part of a rebuild involving
multiple packages.

I don't feel that this shows the right attitude for packaging in
[community].

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Baptiste Jonglez]

On 28-10-18, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> (endless rambling)

Can we please stop this futile bike-shedding exercise?  It does little
outside of discrediting you and the Arch community as a whole.

I already said so in previous discussions, but I am still dismayed at your
and Doug's tendency to aggressively gang up on anybody crossing your way,
assuming from the start that they are lying bastards with devious motives,
without ever questioning your own assumptions or actions.  You desperately
want to always be right and to always have the final word, but I'm sorry
to say that life does not work this way.

Regarding the TU application itself, the discussion period is nearly over.
Since the bylaws mention that the period lasts 14 "full days", I will open
the vote tomorrow morning.

Baptiste


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/28/18 10:43 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> 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.

And on the very next line...

>> 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?

Because when you did admit this mistake, you continued to assert that
your mailing list thread was the thing which caused the other bug to be
reopened.

And because complaining on the bugtracker about how "the bug wranglers
are denying to reopen the bug" is not a question, it's an accusation,
and I expect if you accuse something of happening that you at least be
able to keep your *own* actions straight.

> I did not say or imply that you denied to re-open the bug. I said it
> was denied.

I am one of the two bug wranglers, ipso facto either I or Scimmia denied
it if anyone did.

More specifically, I never said this at all. I said I was annoyed about
your claim that *I would have* denied it -- had you not posted a mailing
list thread.

Again, let's go back to the email.

I said, in my very first post to the list:

> One bug was improperly closed and I've reopened it (that's why you can
> request this)

Your response to my use of the word "I", was to gloss over that
paragraph and the following two paragraphs, in which I explained why the
second bug was denied, and said that the third bug was never closed in
the first place (and pointed out it was even accepted and assigned to
the maintainer).

Instead, you quoted my fourth paragraph, and responded:
> I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with
> little to no comment/explanation.

As then later:
> The other bug is a bug as confirmed - also denied to re-open
> without explanation/investigation. The third bug was re-opened by Filipe
> after my initial email - no need to bash me further about it.

Even though you're literally responding to my pointing out that of the
two, one was never closed, and the other was reopened by *me*.

Your response is unclear, as I mentioned the python2 bug in position #2,
you used position #3. So it's possible you thought the bug I said I
reopened is the one you said was "denied", and the one I said was never
closed is the one you said Filipe re-opened. I'm still not sure how that
confusion would happen either.

You finished off with the statement:

> So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about
> it here. That to me is 'denied'.

Then when in my next email I stated:
> It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
> the first time.

You respond:

> Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I am mistaken.

So, you've switched abruptly from stating that the bug was "denied" to
stating that they were only denied "until I made a fuss about it here",
and you asserted as proof that since I re-opened the bug chronologically
*after* the fuss in question, this means it was your fuss that made me
*willing* to re-open it.

...

Now, relevant to this TU application thread:

You want to know why I am suddenly bringing this up 2 weeks later?
Because even after I called you out on this 2 weeks ago, you went ahead
and said it again, in this very thread -- the statement to which I
responded at all!

> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.

And you think that by apologizing for your error of thinking all three
bugs were closed, you make it all better? I don't care about whether you
were correct in stating that! I care about your attitude when you stated
it, and I care about the fact that you *still* have not apologized to me
for the issue which I *do* care about, which was your accusation that
both I and Scimmia have neglected our duty as Bug Wranglers by denying
your bugs on a whim, and only reopening them due to the publicity threat
that was your mailing list thread!

> 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.' -

No, I 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/28/18 7:33 AM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> The `python-uproot` package required `python-uproot-methods` in a new
> upstream release. This in turn required `python-awkward-array`. Then,
> `python-awkward-array` listed as requirements (on their page, discussed
> at length and addressed later in the bug tracker as you pointed out) at
> the time `numba`, `dask`, `bcolz`, `arrow`. I wanted to provide the
> update so I had to push/find all these. The problem appeared when I
> tried to create the python2 version of the relevant ones (as I provide
> the uproot variant of this). `bcolz` does not have a python2 variant
> still and at the time neither did `dask`. I asked on the relevant pages
> for the maintainers to add them. In the meantime, I wanted to still
> update `python-uproot`. Considering all these were optional, I was able
> to push a new release. This is why it was rushed and this is why it
> needs a rewrite - it could not, at the time, be complete because of the
> constraints. Yes, in principle I could have also tried to provide
> `python2-bcolz` and `python2-dask`, but I thought the current
> maintainers will do a better job at this.

My concern is not that I want a rationalization for why you pushed a
broken PKGBUILD. You didn't *have* to update python-uproot at all.

My concern is why you expect people to vote for you when you still seem
to think it's okay to push broken or substandard packages that you
didn't put effort into, simply because you want to update another
package *now* rather than in a few days once you've had a chance to make
sure it is being built on firm ground rather than quicksand.

I would prefer slightly older software that works, in preference over
hemorrhaging edge software that doesn't work, or only works on the
maintainer's machine.

> As it was picked up in [community], I have not tried to keep it up to
> date. I think it was mentioned by you on the bug tracker that
> `python-awkward` in [community] derives its name from the pypi.org page,
> rather than the project page (`awkward-array`).

Aside: the PyPI.org page is based on the module name, the project page
isn't the interface to the software and is really only relevant in terms
of the github url used to access it. So it seems natural to use that...

> Thus, I discovered a few
> weeks back, that the AUR blacklisting was not taking care of it, at
> least for me. So pushed a small temporary update, thinking since it was
> mentioned, it was being taken care of and in due time a
> `provides=('python-awkward-array')` is going to appear in the official
> binary. I do not presume to know if that's how these things are
> addressed, but this is why `python-awkward-array` is in this (meta-)state.

No one ever asked for a provides, though. As for adding one, I don't see
the point -- the field is meant for cases where e.g. one package is a
drop-in replacement for another package, like -git packages, and for the
binary repositories we'll keep a provides when renaming a package, but
we try to remove those provides, as soon as all official packages have
migrated over to the new dependency name.

I guess we could provide a conflicts for the python-awkward package, to
prevent "error: conflicting files" when an AUR user had the previous
name. But there's no package in the official repos which needs the provides.

> I am guessing at this stage the correct action from my side is to
> request deletion of my AUR variant and change `python-uproot-methods` to
> point to `python-awkward`, but I did want to give it time to see where
> things are going. Now I see where they are going and will correct it, if
> you agree with this resolution.

That seems fine, yes.

> I think that should give responses to all your concerns (including
> below), since I couldn't find a nice way to structure it under each of
> your paragraphs.
> 
>>
>> Can you please refer me to which community package you refer to? I can
>> state with some authority that nothing has ever changed, and this was
>> never correct. I asked you about this a month ago, but you never
>> responded to me.
> 
> I did respond to question:
> 
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034290.html

That package has never had a broken/nonexistent build function and
missing makedepends, though. So I'm still unsure where you got this
incorrect PKGBUILD syntax from.

> I'm sorry to hear that. I think I have good reasons (listed above) for
> the current state of this specific package. My other ones should be
> better I hope.


I guess I'd hope they're better, but I don't acknowledge any sort of
reason as good for an *invalid* PKGBUILD. If it were a matter of a
PKGBUILD failing to use https, or having non-unique sources, or failing
to quote srcdir/pkgdir, using msg2 which isn't even illegal, just
something I personally dislike, or simply using bad bash like:
sed ... $(find ...)

Then I could say "this is something that could use improvement, I
anticipate seeing you do so".

The 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

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 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 28/10/2018 11:36, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Forgot to mention in my previous email - the [community] 
> `python-awkward` does not provide python2 variant, so I can't
> actually delete my AUR package. (This was one of my original bug
> reports.) I would have to keep that up to date, I guess.
It should be fixed now - I've pushed the python2 variant to AUR, moved
the dependencies and version bumped where needed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEU1nMa+iBGLUfXJC1YH21X/cbcFIFAlvVqaIACgkQYH21X/cb
cFLauwf6A8Z0dmxC5Dr9pTHovYiJtxM0utemVeE6z9D7E61DFrqRwrHiGpTjeOtX
3u8tAA24LaspakP0jGzbSi/1+qbQDCzI6EwFWB/03rdpY9cNvQOrKZbYeigs1Xgr
UXHtXaqwJzECpB4dMbVeCYd/W8EcyF0XYMBbYUdgVvWQwL8VeJ8+8o5nXGhoGYhC
ewVyeBXPdCxIZHZRnnj20Wx0IVWBEV6uUNq9swylVNJvVouO+3ORKwLysesdkkbX
5QiVFuaeNsFZxdgD5ok1qtm0Q5jGJCX//0mUZEJ8pOlAlDkS69VN92lb/sR6zvBK
lv9caKpA4y39R451uNiIYS7c8ixlSg==
=LnJj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 28/10/2018 11:36, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Forgot to mention in my previous email - the [community] > `python-awkward` 
> does not provide python2 variant, so I can't
actually > delete my AUR package. (This was one of my original bug
reports.) I > would have to keep that up to date, I guess. It should be
fixed now - I've pushed the python2 variant only to AUR, moved the
dependencies and version bumped where needed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEU1nMa+iBGLUfXJC1YH21X/cbcFIFAlvVqCIACgkQYH21X/cb
cFLOzwf+NONEtKa10bd0dkHKDkpI1fSp1KOuNPghTpSoOiBxtyr5+ycsqew9dsfe
LAPtJZYV/1HLsPYw2Utimp2HsvREDgoK6sDJLoiZ4YQ7XwnMLRA1mBQ5xpb3hyH9
xtEeDh7IxBderFK2gpuu5o94Wlu3S1SM8n7eo2a4d430dOywAI7YQ36hyopGmWLJ
he5dgSTTFEzC9gRGvVaphdK4z/Z94tO94fXYGsmqBW0j/ESauD2ufA4CtGQnQAqC
hlnhuP8RRK+RzantLfFGS1vV65MNin2qL/hzo923CowYHgLSnT+ioEBbJBgX6vve
5siUznS263vZhPHTUb09oMV4r4m9aQ==
=mRxG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 28/10/2018 01:40, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 10/14/18 4:34 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
>> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
>> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
>> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
>> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
>> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
>> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
>> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
>> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
>> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>>
>> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
>> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
>> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
>> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
>> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
>> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>>
>> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
>> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
>> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
>> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
>> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
>> use Arch, too!', haha.
>>
>> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
>> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
>> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
>> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
>> already.
>>
>> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>>
>>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>>   o python-awkward
>>   o libafterimage
>>   o xxhash
>>   o unuran
>>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>>   o root & root-extra
>>   o xrootd
>>   o simpletools
>>   o root5
>>   o python-root_numpy
>>   o python-uproot
>>   o python-uproot-methods
>>   o python-hep_ml
>>   o pythia
>>   o llvm50
>>   o llvm50-libs
>>   o clang50
>>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>>   o cern-vdt
>>   o cvmfs
>>   o HepDrone [4]
>>   o python-keras
>>   o root_pandas (new)
>>   o histbook (new)
>>   o decaylanguage (new)
>>   o pyjet (new)
>>   o vegascope (new)
>>   o root_ufunc (new)
>>   o formulate (new)
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> As is customary when someone applies as a TU, I try to review their
> PKGBUILDs.
>
> $ ./ztrawhcse -Wall -Werror -Wpedantic
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>
> Uh-oh -- I'm not sure what to do with this?
> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/PKGBUILD?h=python-awkward-array=59bfa242560e113a39bd630d20d21eee45954dd7
>
> This actually came up on [aur-general] before:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html
>
> In summary, this is invalid PKGBUILD syntax for two reasons
> - makedepends cannot be specified in build() functions
> - there is no such thing as split build_*() functions
>
> When I asked you about why you uploaded invalid PKGBUILDs, you responded
> that "it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream,
> because I maintain my packages well".
>
> I'm afraid I completely disagree. It's not maintaining packages well to
> upload things without checking that they work, and a good packager
> focuses on getting something to work properly, rather than slipping on
> quality in the rush to update other packages as soon as possible --
> maybe in order to claim that Arch is always up to date? I don't know,
> but if that's the reason, then I for one would much prefer less
> bleeding-edge packages as long as they at least work.
>
> i.e. "bleeding edge", not "hemorrhaging edge".
>
> You also said the package needs a complete rewrite "which I'm well aware
> of". Does this mean you knew it didn't work when you uploaded it, but
> you uploaded it anyway?
Forgot to mention in my previous email - the [community]
`python-awkward` does not provide python2 variant, so I can't actually
delete my AUR package. (This was one of my original bug reports.) I
would have to keep that up to date, I guess.
>
> You also said that "this particular style of package was copied from
> another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it
> was pointed out to me here in the AUR".
>
> Can you please refer me to which community package you refer to? I can
> state with some authority that nothing has ever changed, and this was
> never correct. I asked you about this a month ago, but you never
> 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Hi Eli,

On 28/10/2018 01:40, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 10/14/18 4:34 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
>> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
>> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
>> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
>> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
>> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
>> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
>> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
>> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
>> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>>
>> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
>> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
>> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
>> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
>> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
>> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>>
>> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
>> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
>> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
>> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
>> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
>> use Arch, too!', haha.
>>
>> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
>> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
>> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
>> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
>> already.
>>
>> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>>
>>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>>   o python-awkward
>>   o libafterimage
>>   o xxhash
>>   o unuran
>>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>>   o root & root-extra
>>   o xrootd
>>   o simpletools
>>   o root5
>>   o python-root_numpy
>>   o python-uproot
>>   o python-uproot-methods
>>   o python-hep_ml
>>   o pythia
>>   o llvm50
>>   o llvm50-libs
>>   o clang50
>>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>>   o cern-vdt
>>   o cvmfs
>>   o HepDrone [4]
>>   o python-keras
>>   o root_pandas (new)
>>   o histbook (new)
>>   o decaylanguage (new)
>>   o pyjet (new)
>>   o vegascope (new)
>>   o root_ufunc (new)
>>   o formulate (new)
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> As is customary when someone applies as a TU, I try to review their
> PKGBUILDs.
>
> $ ./ztrawhcse -Wall -Werror -Wpedantic
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>
> Uh-oh -- I'm not sure what to do with this?
> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/PKGBUILD?h=python-awkward-array=59bfa242560e113a39bd630d20d21eee45954dd7
>
> This actually came up on [aur-general] before:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html
>
> In summary, this is invalid PKGBUILD syntax for two reasons
> - makedepends cannot be specified in build() functions
> - there is no such thing as split build_*() functions
>
> When I asked you about why you uploaded invalid PKGBUILDs, you responded
> that "it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream,
> because I maintain my packages well".
>
> I'm afraid I completely disagree. It's not maintaining packages well to
> upload things without checking that they work, and a good packager
> focuses on getting something to work properly, rather than slipping on
> quality in the rush to update other packages as soon as possible --
> maybe in order to claim that Arch is always up to date? I don't know,
> but if that's the reason, then I for one would much prefer less
> bleeding-edge packages as long as they at least work.
>
> i.e. "bleeding edge", not "hemorrhaging edge".
>
> You also said the package needs a complete rewrite "which I'm well aware
> of". Does this mean you knew it didn't work when you uploaded it, but
> you uploaded it anyway?
>
> You also said that "this particular style of package was copied from
> another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it
> was pointed out to me here in the AUR".

The `python-uproot` package required `python-uproot-methods` in a new
upstream release. This in turn required `python-awkward-array`. Then,
`python-awkward-array` listed as requirements (on their page, discussed
at length and addressed later in the bug tracker as you pointed out) at
the time `numba`, `dask`, `bcolz`, `arrow`. I wanted to provide the
update so I had to push/find all these. The problem appeared when I
tried to create the python2 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/14/18 4:34 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
> 
> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
> 
> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
> use Arch, too!', haha.
> 
> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
> already.
> 
> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
> 
>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>   o python-awkward
>   o libafterimage
>   o xxhash
>   o unuran
>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>   o root & root-extra
>   o xrootd
>   o simpletools
>   o root5
>   o python-root_numpy
>   o python-uproot
>   o python-uproot-methods
>   o python-hep_ml
>   o pythia
>   o llvm50
>   o llvm50-libs
>   o clang50
>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>   o cern-vdt
>   o cvmfs
>   o HepDrone [4]
>   o python-keras
>   o root_pandas (new)
>   o histbook (new)
>   o decaylanguage (new)
>   o pyjet (new)
>   o vegascope (new)
>   o root_ufunc (new)
>   o formulate (new)

Hi Konstantin,

As is customary when someone applies as a TU, I try to review their
PKGBUILDs.

$ ./ztrawhcse -Wall -Werror -Wpedantic
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Uh-oh -- I'm not sure what to do with this?
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/PKGBUILD?h=python-awkward-array=59bfa242560e113a39bd630d20d21eee45954dd7

This actually came up on [aur-general] before:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html

In summary, this is invalid PKGBUILD syntax for two reasons
- makedepends cannot be specified in build() functions
- there is no such thing as split build_*() functions

When I asked you about why you uploaded invalid PKGBUILDs, you responded
that "it was added 2 weeks ago in a rush to push a new version upstream,
because I maintain my packages well".

I'm afraid I completely disagree. It's not maintaining packages well to
upload things without checking that they work, and a good packager
focuses on getting something to work properly, rather than slipping on
quality in the rush to update other packages as soon as possible --
maybe in order to claim that Arch is always up to date? I don't know,
but if that's the reason, then I for one would much prefer less
bleeding-edge packages as long as they at least work.

i.e. "bleeding edge", not "hemorrhaging edge".

You also said the package needs a complete rewrite "which I'm well aware
of". Does this mean you knew it didn't work when you uploaded it, but
you uploaded it anyway?

You also said that "this particular style of package was copied from
another [community] package a long time ago, things have changed as it
was pointed out to me here in the AUR".

Can you please refer me to which community package you refer to? I can
state with some authority that nothing has ever changed, and this was
never correct. I asked you about this a month ago, but you never
responded to me.

...

On the topic of this package, you never fixed it until the 14th of this
month, two weeks later, right around the time you submitted your TU
application. I'm hoping that this isn't because you don't have time to
fix things unless you're actively trying to apply for a TU position, but
this *was* a very easy thing to fix...

That being said, I'm not sure why you tried to fix it at all, since the
package is a 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

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 received the response: "Yes, by you after I send this email, unless I
am mistaken."

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 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.

> 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

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Christos Nouskas]

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.

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.

Especially because it comes from the very people who advised him to
apply as a TU and that man is now appealing to.

--
X

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 26/10/2018 19:40, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote:
> Hey Konstantin,
>
> I'm wondering which tool you use to keep track of upstream
> releases? is it urlwatch or such?
>
>
> cheers,
> Levente
>
Personally, the packages I maintain are not that numerous that I need a
tool, so I check a couple of times a week as I am on the Git pages anyway.

But now I see `urlwatch` supports Telegram Bots, so I might set it up on
my server.

Regards,

Konstantin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

Hey Konstantin,

I'm wondering which tool you use to keep track of upstream
releases? is it urlwatch or such?


cheers,
Levente



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/26/18 2:09 PM, Maksim Fomin via aur-general wrote:
> I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the
> quote above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was
> used by group of people, after moving package to community, some
> things (important to that group) became broken - presumably because
> of some changes in community package. There is nothing wrong in
> telling that one person was maintaining package and his colleagues
> became accustomed to that package.

The whole point is that there was nothing broken, at all.

One package had a FTBFS, but the built package worked flawlessly.

One package had some confusion about whether some optdepends in the AUR
were necessary, but the conclusion was ultimately that they're not.

One package had a bug report filed, asking for the python version to be
moved to community as well.

All three issues were initially brought to the bugtracker. All three
issues were correctly handled according to the standard process.

At no point whatsoever was any sort of aur-general discussion, necessary
to the bug resolution process.

I'd also like to reiterate that none of the involved binary packages
were in fact, at the end of the day broken in any way, shape, or form.
Only one of the three issues posed the possibility that a binary package
*might* be broken.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Doug Newgard via aur-general]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:09:50 +
Maksim Fomin via aur-general  wrote:

> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general 
>  wrote:
> >
> > You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely 
> > clear.
> > You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be 
> > a
> > reason), and say things like:
> >
> > "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> > maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> > chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> > with care and updating with new features."
> >
> > The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> > offense, but you're an idiot".
> >
> > Reference:
> > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
> >  
> 
> I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote 
> above expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group 
> of people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that 
> group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community 
> package. There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining 
> package and his colleagues became accustomed to that package.

Except there was nothing wrong with the packages in Community, nothing had
broken.

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Dan Beste via aur-general]

On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 20:48 +0300, Jerome Leclanche wrote:
> I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous
> few emails.

There was a thread a while back that got a bit heated.

> Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if it's
> not, why not be a little more professional about it?

Agreed.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Maksim Fomin via aur-general]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, October 26, 2018 8:23 PM, Doug Newgard via aur-general 
 wrote:
>
> You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely 
> clear.
> You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> reason), and say things like:
>
> "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> with care and updating with new features."
>
> The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> offense, but you're an idiot".
>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>

I see no such attitude. After reading this and previous thread the quote above 
expresses what happened quite neutrally: AUR package was used by group of 
people, after moving package to community, some things (important to that 
group) became broken - presumably because of some changes in community package. 
There is nothing wrong in telling that one person was maintaining package and 
his colleagues became accustomed to that package.

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 26/10/2018 18:23, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
> Konstantin Gizdov  wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>>
>>> In this thread, you:
>>>
>>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one 
>>> that
>>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.  
>> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
>> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
>> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
>> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
>> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
>> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
>>
>> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
>> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
>> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
>> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
>> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
>> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
>> trying to do that.
> You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely 
> clear.
> You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
> reason), and say things like:
>
> "The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
> maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
> chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
> with care and updating with new features."
>
> The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
> offense, but you're an idiot". 
Nope, it's like - I wanna make sure the stuff works and want to ask some
questions.
>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>
>>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that 
>>> this
>>> whining is how things get done. It's not.  
>> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
>> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
>> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
>> exampes.
>>
>> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
>> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
>> email worked fine.
> And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
> it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
> on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
> information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
> wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
> request and reopened it.
How do I know this? Also, I just sent an email with questions, you could
have replied - 'looking into it'. For example,

https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034281.html

> In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
> sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
> that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure 
> you,
> it accomplished nothing good.
OK. Good to know.
>>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.  
>> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
>> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
>> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
>> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
>> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
>> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
> So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. 
> Yet
> you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
> comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a
> mistake.
>
> Reference:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html

The mistake was I tried to re-open all 3 instead of 2, which I
acknowledged on the spot. I just check in the bug tracker.

This is the last email about this to you too.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Jerome Leclanche]

I don't understand all the animosity towards the guy in the previous few
emails. Is assuming good faith really that far-fetched here? And even if
it's not, why not be a little more professional about it?

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 26/10/2018 17:49, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>>
>>> In this thread, you:
>>>
>>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one 
>>> that
>>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.
>> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
>> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
>> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
>> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
>> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
>> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
> s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/
>
> By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely
> implying oppression?
>
>> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
>> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
>> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
>> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
>> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
>> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
>> trying to do that.
> Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you
> wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval
> in order to function as a distribution.
>
> I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an
> AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people
> are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is
> *not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this
> according to my exacting standards".
>
>>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that 
>>> this
>>> whining is how things get done. It's not.
>> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
>> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
>> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
>> exampes.
>>
>> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
>> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
>> email worked fine.
> Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've
> definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you.
>
> Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past:
>
> YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS
> EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT.
>
> Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia
> and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a
> special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get
> evaluated on merit.
>
> We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to
> ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby.
>
> I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
> you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
> mailing list spam.
>
> I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a
> look at your re-open request.
> A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*.
>
> I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this
> conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your
> repeated lies about me.
>
>>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
>> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
>> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
>> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
>> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
>> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
>> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
>>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?
>> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
>> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
>> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
>> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
>> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
>> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
>> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.
> I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone
> else to do it right. You're a control 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**

Are you referring to this correction right here?
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034288.html

By using my privileged power of reading comprehension, I've uncovered
the astonishing fact that he "corrected" his statement by fixing the
sentence fragment "was was never denied" to "one was never denied".

(He also expounded on his previous point by providing additional
information which his first post never touched on at all.)

I'm not sure what subtle point you're trying to make here about
"everyone makes mistakes", but when you come to the mailing list
spreading assumptions and false information, and someone else corrects
their own typo, then you're not even comparing similar concepts, so you
should probably look for different proofs.

Also it reeks of you trying to inflate someone else's mistake in order
to make yours look less bad, because your reference here is, while
"technically" not false, nevertheless designed to make readers *think*
that Doug retracted something he said about you, rather than correcting
a nonsensical typo that could very well have come from autocorrect.

And, your false claims about how the bugtracker is being handled is
indeed something that could use help in looking less bad.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Doug Newgard via aur-general]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100
Konstantin Gizdov  wrote:

> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> > I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
> > https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
> >
> > In this thread, you:
> >
> > 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one 
> > that
> > knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.  
> 
> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.
> 
> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
> trying to do that.

You did thank Felix, but then went on to make your true intent extremely clear.
You specifically ask why your packages were moved (there doesn't have to be a
reason), and say things like:

"The reason I'm asking is because over the years I've added and been
maintaining some professional software and these packages are part of that
chain. Colleagues in the field have become accustomed to me for packaging
with care and updating with new features."

The aforementioned thanks would appear to be perfunctory, like saying "No
offense, but you're an idiot". 

Reference:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html

> > 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that 
> > this
> > whining is how things get done. It's not.  
> 
> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
> exampes.
> 
> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.

And this attitude right here is a major problem. One ticket was closed because
it was very clearly not a bug. The second one that was closed was closed based
on the information you gave, the reopen request contained different
information. Based on that, I didn't deny the reopen request and decided to
wait until I got home to try it. In the mean time, Eli took a look at the
request and reopened it.

In the middle of all of that, and completely independently and unrelated, you
sent your email to this list, but you still seem to be under the impression
that it was a good thing and actually accomplished something. I can assure you,
it accomplished nothing good.

> 
> > 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.  
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**

So you opened 3 tickets. Two were closed and *one* (1) was denied a reopen. Yet
you claim "I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with little to no
comment/explanation." There is too much disparity here to be a typo or a
mistake.

Reference:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034286.html


pgpcZVOtZcsFn.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/26/18 12:49 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
> you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
> mailing list spam.

That is, when reading your reopen request.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

On 10/26/18 12:29 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
>> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
>> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>>
>> In this thread, you:
>>
>> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one 
>> that
>> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.
> 
> I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
> them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
> how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
> the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
> tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
> will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.

s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/

By "details sorted" do you mean, we told you to stfu and stop snidely
implying oppression?

> Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
> yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
> thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
> you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
> the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
> wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
> trying to do that.

Thereby implying you're unsure whether we're fit to maintain it, and you
wish to pass your personal judgment, as though we needed your approval
in order to function as a distribution.

I assure you you're not the only person who has ever put work into an
AUR package and then seen it be moved to community. Most of those people
are cheerfully happy to see it moved, and their instinctive reaction is
*not* "gosh, I wonder if they really know enough to package this
according to my exacting standards".

>> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
>> whining is how things get done. It's not.
> 
> Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
> I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
> why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
> exampes.
> 
> By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
> reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
> email worked fine.

Thanks for lying about me. In case I had any doubt what to vote, I've
definitely made up my mind now and I'm voting against you.

Just in case I was not somehow clear in the past:

YOU FILED A REQUEST TO HAVE THE BUG RE-OPENED. THAT REQUEST WAS
EVALUATED ON ITS OWN MERIT.

Spamming the mailing list with whiny complaints does not help. Scimmia
and I get notifications about all re-open requests, and we have a
special admin interface to view all such pending requests. These get
evaluated on merit.

We will get to them when we get to them. There is no conspiracy to
ignore you until you complain on the mailing list like a whiny baby.

I hereby swear to you, and will happily have it notarized if it makes
you any happier, that I completely ignored your thread when reading your
mailing list spam.

I will acknowledge that due to noticing your mailing list spam, I took a
look at your re-open request.
A grand total of maybe two hours before I would have looked at it *ANYWAY*.

I don't appreciate having to justify myself over inanities like this
conversation, and respectfully ask you to cease and desist on your
repeated lies about me.

>> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
> I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
> evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
> tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
> **you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
> acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
> mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
>> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?
> 
> Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
> I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
> the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
> on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
> TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
> to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
> everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.

I read this differently, you care so much that you don't trust anyone
else to do it right. You're a control freak, and I don't want to have to
deal with you on the team, no matter how capable you are as a programmer.

Other TUs can make their own decisions of course.

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 26/10/2018 15:27, Doug Newgard via aur-general wrote:
> I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
>
> In this thread, you:
>
> 1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one 
> that
> knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.

I did no such thing. I opened the thread by thanking Felix for picking
them up and asked a few questions about the plans for the packages and
how to pass on what I know, because I was having trouble doing that over
the bug tracker. What ensued after (the responses) was not my doing. I
tried to respond to every and all comments respectfully and I think you
will find a through discussion was had and a lot of details were sorted.

Part of that was revealing that the ROOT stack was being picked up -
yes, I care about it as it directly affects my profession and I've given
thorough reasons why. I **never claimed the packages were mine** - if
you talk about the usage of the word 'my', it clearly refers to me being
the maintainer. I said I've put work into them, continue to do so and
wanted to make sure I can pass that on in full. My TU application is me
trying to do that.

> 2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
> whining is how things get done. It's not.

Again, I did no such thing. I explained what happened and asked how can
I do better. I was told I have to stick to the bug tracker. Thus, I said
why I think this approach is failing in that particular case and gave
exampes.

By the way, it was only because of that email that one of the bugs was
reopened (by Eli) and fixed, otherwise it was ignored. Seems to me my
email worked fine.

> 3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. In the many emails I wrote that
evening, I got confused about one bug being closed, where it wasn't. You
tried to call me out for lying and my whole point being wrong, but later
**you yourself sent a follow up email to correct your own statement**. I
acknowledged my mistake on the spot. Surely, we can agree all of us make
mistakes. **In no way or form was I telling bald faced lies.**
> You really think this makes you TU material? Really?

Yes, I think the way I have handled the situation makes me trustworthy.
I care for the packages I maintain and the community enough to make sure
the packages are left in excellent shape and hands so people can depend
on them. I also have serious respect for the people here, community &
TUs - as I've said before, ArchLinux has been good to me I want to good
to it. This is why I made the fuss, because I care, but I also took
everyone's perspective in and kept a working discussion.

Moreover, I am still trying to have a respectful conversation, give my
reasoning and make my point heard in the face of you trying to
completely misrepresent my intentions, what I said and did, and what I
stand for.

Regards,

Konstantin






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Doug Newgard via aur-general]

I must point out this very recent mailing list thread:
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html

In this thread, you:

1) whine about someone taking over *your* packages, because you're the one that
knows them and has cared for them and, after all, they're YOURS.

2) whine about how things were handled on the bug tracker, thinking that this
whining is how things get done. It's not.

3) Tell bald faced lies about how things transpired on the bug tracker.

You really think this makes you TU material? Really?



pgp1kq7mkCEqE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

On 14/10/2018 23:24, Levente Polyak via aur-general wrote:
> Hey Konstantin,
>
>
> On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
   o llvm50
   o llvm50-libs
   o clang50
> Didn't dig into it myself as its easier to ask, could you maybe
> elaborate why we would need those 50 versioned variants? Normally we try
> to keep the number of versioned variants to the very minimum and only
> throw them in as a last resort because of mayor incompatibilities :)
>
> cheers,
> Levente
>
Yeah, I know. This is from way back and a core issue. As it stands now,
ROOT requires a custom patched version of Clang 5.x.x to build it's
Cling interpreter. A year ago, it couldn't even build against an
external LLVM. I've been pushing for some patches upstream to make LLVM
external. For the moment, ROOT still requires a built-in build of Clang
5.0, but that obviously does not include all latest fixes upstream. So
moving to LLVM 5.0.2 external and pushing for more changes to support
Clang external too will correct that. And the next step will be to more
to more recent LLVM stack versions.

Regards,

Konstantin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

Hey Konstantin,


On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
>>>   o llvm50
>>>   o llvm50-libs
>>>   o clang50

Didn't dig into it myself as its easier to ask, could you maybe
elaborate why we would need those 50 versioned variants? Normally we try
to keep the number of versioned variants to the very minimum and only
throw them in as a last resort because of mayor incompatibilities :)

cheers,
Levente



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

On 10/14/18 11:41 PM, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> Sure, I can share the load. I've built tensorflow+cuda from scratch a
> couple of times and completely understand the struggle. :)
> 

Reminder to always bottom-post on Arch mailinglists ;)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Sure, I can share the load. I've built tensorflow+cuda from scratch a
couple of times and completely understand the struggle. :)

On 14/10/2018 22:31, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 22:34 Konstantin Gizdov  wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
>> (`kgizdov`, `a...@kge.pw`, `kgiz...@gmail.com`)
>>
>> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
>> sponsorship.
>>
>> A few words about me:
>>
>> I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
>> have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
>> high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
>> Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
>> projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
>> although only more active since 2+ years.
>>
>> My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
>> Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
>> been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
>> High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
>> experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
>> & enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
>> associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
>> web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
>> personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
>> network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
>> work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
>> from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
>> to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
>> VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
>> lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
>> breeze on Arch Linux.
>>
>> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
>> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
>> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
>> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
>> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
>> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
>> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
>> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
>> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
>> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>>
>> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
>> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
>> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
>> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
>> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
>> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>>
>> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
>> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
>> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
>> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
>> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
>> use Arch, too!', haha.
>>
>> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
>> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
>> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
>> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
>> already.
>>
>> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>>
>>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>>   o python-awkward
>>   o libafterimage
>>   o xxhash
>>   o unuran
>>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>>   o root & root-extra
>>   o xrootd
>>   o simpletools
>>   o root5
>>   o python-root_numpy
>>   o python-uproot
>>   o python-uproot-methods
>>   o python-hep_ml
>>   o pythia
>>   o llvm50
>>   o llvm50-libs
>>   o clang50
>>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>>   o cern-vdt
>>   o cvmfs
>>   o HepDrone [4]
>>   o python-keras
>>   o root_pandas (new)
>>   o histbook (new)
>>   o decaylanguage (new)
>>   o pyjet (new)
>>   o vegascope (new)
>>   o root_ufunc (new)
>>   o formulate (new)
>>
>> I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
>> science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Konstantin
>>
>> 1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
>> 2. https://github.com/kgizdov
>> 3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
>> 4. 

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2018, 22:34 Konstantin Gizdov  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
> (`kgizdov`, `a...@kge.pw`, `kgiz...@gmail.com`)
>
> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
> sponsorship.
>
> A few words about me:
>
> I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
> have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
> high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
> Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
> projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
> although only more active since 2+ years.
>
> My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
> Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
> been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
> High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
> experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
> & enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
> associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
> web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
> personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
> network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
> work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
> from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
> to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
> VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
> lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
> breeze on Arch Linux.
>
> Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
> contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
> since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
> the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
> package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
> complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
> enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
> functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
> other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
> like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.
>
> I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
> me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
> SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
> great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
> up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
> others on the AUR without too much hassle.
>
> Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
> role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
> itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
> approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
> people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
> use Arch, too!', haha.
>
> The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
> give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
> maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
> packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
> already.
>
> I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:
>
>   * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
>   o python-awkward
>   o libafterimage
>   o xxhash
>   o unuran
>   * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
>   o root & root-extra
>   o xrootd
>   o simpletools
>   o root5
>   o python-root_numpy
>   o python-uproot
>   o python-uproot-methods
>   o python-hep_ml
>   o pythia
>   o llvm50
>   o llvm50-libs
>   o clang50
>   * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
>   o cern-vdt
>   o cvmfs
>   o HepDrone [4]
>   o python-keras
>   o root_pandas (new)
>   o histbook (new)
>   o decaylanguage (new)
>   o pyjet (new)
>   o vegascope (new)
>   o root_ufunc (new)
>   o formulate (new)
>
> I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
> science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Konstantin
>
> 1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
> 2. https://github.com/kgizdov
> 3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
> 4. https://github.com/Tevien/HEPDrone
> 5. https://github.com/scikit-hep
> 6. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov/pdqa-automation


Great stuff. Would you be interested in co-maintaining tensorflow, cuda and
pytorch and related packages? They sometimes cost a lot of time to fix up.

Re: [aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

On 14-10-18, Konstantin Gizdov wrote:
> I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
> (`kgizdov`, `a...@kge.pw`, `kgiz...@gmail.com`)
> 
> I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
> sponsorship.

I confirm my sponsorship of Konstantin.  Let the discussion period begin,
it seems to be a good day to apply to become a TU!

Baptiste


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Hello,

I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
(`kgizdov`, `a...@kge.pw`, `kgiz...@gmail.com`)

I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.

A few words about me:

I am currently a Particle Physics PhD at Univerisity of Edinburgh and I
have used Linux since my early teenage years. After I finished
high-school, Linux has been my main operating system. I embraced Open
Source software for a long time ago and contribute to such several
projects [2][3][4]. I have been with Arch Linux since 4+ years ago,
although only more active since 2+ years.

My main work is concentrated on Experimental Particle Physics & the LHCb
Detector at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As part of that I have
been involved in the development, upgrade & maintenance of the
High-Level Trigger & RICH systems and LHCb's data flow [3]. I also have
experience with a lot of data processing & analysis - data distillation
& enrichment, machine learning, statistical analysis, etc - and
associated tools. Separately, I maintain several machines - a personal
web server, company server with several VMs, local workhorse server,
personal workstation & laptop (sprinkle around some RaspberryPis and
network devices here and there). This put me in a unique position to
work with many and different kinds of systems and software - ranging
from ASICs & FPGAs, through localized control systems & end-user devices
to large clusters & super computers. Daily, I use popular tools such as
VMs, docker, git, GCC, CUDA, tensorflow, Cern's ROOT, but I also run a
lot of custom and even-self made software [4][6]. All of this has been a
breeze on Arch Linux.

Thus, a couple of years ago, I decide to get more involved and
contribute. I took on the task to maintain CERN's ROOT package [7] and
since then I've involved myself heavily into that, I'm a contributor to
the project and I use it daily in my work. I have been providing this
package for many colleagues in the field, including all of its stack &
complementary tools (Pythia, XRootD & other Python tools). I have
enabled a lot of new features and worked with upstream towards new
functionality, bug fixes, etc. On top of that I have shipped several
other related projects - machine learning packages, SciKit-HEP packages
like uproot, Docker images, GitLab CIs and so on.

I have also been able to develop and publish a machine learning project
me and colleague came up with [4]. This is soon going to be a package in
SciKit-HEP and I will aim to make it package here too. Arch Linux was a
great platform for all of this. I was able to install & configure
up-to-date software easily and what I did not find, I provided for me &
others on the AUR without too much hassle.

Overall, I have to say Arch Linux (and its community) have played a key
role in me being able to do all of these things. I have found the OS
itself to be stable and flexible and the users & maintainers
approachable and direct, which I appreciate a lot. I have met a lot of
people through the Arch Linux community - forums, AUR and just saying 'I
use Arch, too!', haha.

The reason for applying to become a TU is to get even more involved and
give back to the community. If you accept me, I would like to continue
maintaining and improving my current packages as well as bring new
packages. As an AUR maintainer I basically consider it an on-going duty
already.

I would like to maintain/contribute/adopt the following:

  * Packages I would like to co-maintain:
  o python-awkward
  o libafterimage
  o xxhash
  o unuran
  * Packages I already maintain and intend to move from AUR:
  o root & root-extra
  o xrootd
  o simpletools
  o root5
  o python-root_numpy
  o python-uproot
  o python-uproot-methods
  o python-hep_ml
  o pythia
  o llvm50
  o llvm50-libs
  o clang50
  * New packages I would like to add/move from AUR:
  o cern-vdt
  o cvmfs
  o HepDrone [4]
  o python-keras
  o root_pandas (new)
  o histbook (new)
  o decaylanguage (new)
  o pyjet (new)
  o vegascope (new)
  o root_ufunc (new)
  o formulate (new)

I hope to make Arch Linux more versatile and accessible to users in data
science, high-energy physics & machine learning, and possibly as a whole.

Thank you.

-- 
Regards,

Konstantin

1. https://keybase.io/kgizdov
2. https://github.com/kgizdov
3. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov
4. https://github.com/Tevien/HEPDrone
5. https://github.com/scikit-hep
6. https://gitlab.cern.ch/kgizdov/pdqa-automation


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature