Re: [qubes-users] Re: For community by community - A way to preserve/focus everyones work going into Qubes, bottom-up
On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 2:42:38 AM UTC+1, Andrew David Wong wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 2018-03-08 14:19, Yuraeitha wrote: > > What we do need confirmation about is how this will officially > > relate to Qubes OS on the contents that is finished in the Qubes > > Community doc page though though. Hopefully Andrew can shine some > > light on that. > > > > As explained above, I'm envisioning that the finished output of the > community system will be a high-quality PR submitted to qubes-doc. > > - -- > Andrew David Wong (Axon) > Community Manager, Qubes OS > https://www.qubes-os.org > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEZQ7rCYX0j3henGH1203TvDlQMDAFAlqh5n0ACgkQ203TvDlQ > MDC2ZhAAwWD28DOy7Or29AWxfxvWU5LFpVjSpGTcwVxOWCbEXqJ2rI+dOEcb/KXj > Kp+CjIyfpXZGS8Azuv/kCEDYgnLGybkgY04l9N4A5YaDbFpHRZ08SdqtfvOWuesr > nX+n5dr3bW2pVm1NEoFPUKISy9hpwJT1YoIDXyIvHMwM9+EoLyLpwmz9kPrfdMDG > Ejev0zyDkX0S11mPrCi5SdJS+Hs/S2i2UP2obmUHIdAx8rbQsdomT1917pJaBz3d > NOenZCS5gL5120RdhljnzjvaryA7ldkS+ifEz+VAO3+yUvRdudaKu+n1QyAW9bT3 > 8EH0qb9fZlfOH2Xb1n72FCS+OP14NFpctEnh1s+gcBO4ZwPrkeGxlDQ5JxLVi+W+ > qo5zLjiiUa3dFE6QWglO9XeN8zFq9rZso5SE/ziSkIO1xZnobaVwvBTaJeKhD3NH > bxZhfCDp32kirJf092EfWUY68B3AaMIWWkQMtcMsaJ/wlu2RHCQJbRbzyAM0Hanp > aWPH1v2jepUsHCAFRvCyFhlf0HBI33/lcZNK033iC8cHghpBzR1v1uaa+fjs48DW > qcZgdpUIPCR6HczaYqxCgTlVs3TCNfMRcJZwBqJE1EYwri5fqXUGhPqsSfJpw5e/ > jm3A1jH1frsTlfPfBf9/RapitPx2YVrLiKDdRo4ZL6xaisrIFIk= > =hs8n > -END PGP SIGNATURE- Apologies Andrew, I should have put the question more clearly. What I mean is if we have two pages, one for Qubes doc's, and another for Qubes Community doc's, where will the Community doc's be, in an official sense? I'm fully with you regarding the Qubes doc's, what I'm wondering about is the page listing all the Community doc's which are not ready to be moved to Qubes doc's yet. Should the Community doc page be kept off-site? or is it okay to have it listed (in a similar logical sense to current-testing and unstable repositories, just unstable and current-testing guides instead). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/7ac75934-47d8-4718-ae1d-5c68e84f6f85%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [qubes-users] Re: For community by community - A way to preserve/focus everyones work going into Qubes, bottom-up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2018-03-08 14:19, Yuraeitha wrote: > What we do need confirmation about is how this will officially > relate to Qubes OS on the contents that is finished in the Qubes > Community doc page though though. Hopefully Andrew can shine some > light on that. > As explained above, I'm envisioning that the finished output of the community system will be a high-quality PR submitted to qubes-doc. - -- Andrew David Wong (Axon) Community Manager, Qubes OS https://www.qubes-os.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEZQ7rCYX0j3henGH1203TvDlQMDAFAlqh5n0ACgkQ203TvDlQ MDC2ZhAAwWD28DOy7Or29AWxfxvWU5LFpVjSpGTcwVxOWCbEXqJ2rI+dOEcb/KXj Kp+CjIyfpXZGS8Azuv/kCEDYgnLGybkgY04l9N4A5YaDbFpHRZ08SdqtfvOWuesr nX+n5dr3bW2pVm1NEoFPUKISy9hpwJT1YoIDXyIvHMwM9+EoLyLpwmz9kPrfdMDG Ejev0zyDkX0S11mPrCi5SdJS+Hs/S2i2UP2obmUHIdAx8rbQsdomT1917pJaBz3d NOenZCS5gL5120RdhljnzjvaryA7ldkS+ifEz+VAO3+yUvRdudaKu+n1QyAW9bT3 8EH0qb9fZlfOH2Xb1n72FCS+OP14NFpctEnh1s+gcBO4ZwPrkeGxlDQ5JxLVi+W+ qo5zLjiiUa3dFE6QWglO9XeN8zFq9rZso5SE/ziSkIO1xZnobaVwvBTaJeKhD3NH bxZhfCDp32kirJf092EfWUY68B3AaMIWWkQMtcMsaJ/wlu2RHCQJbRbzyAM0Hanp aWPH1v2jepUsHCAFRvCyFhlf0HBI33/lcZNK033iC8cHghpBzR1v1uaa+fjs48DW qcZgdpUIPCR6HczaYqxCgTlVs3TCNfMRcJZwBqJE1EYwri5fqXUGhPqsSfJpw5e/ jm3A1jH1frsTlfPfBf9/RapitPx2YVrLiKDdRo4ZL6xaisrIFIk= =hs8n -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/cc2760d6-c4bb-fc7e-a0f6-f9b693ef8917%40qubes-os.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[qubes-users] Re: For community by community - A way to preserve/focus everyones work going into Qubes, bottom-up
Perhaps we should form a list in this thread to get started of who is who on github, for those interested in this project. It'd probably be fine to start working together too without further confirmation from the Qubes staff. What we do need confirmation about is how this will officially relate to Qubes OS on the contents that is finished in the Qubes Community doc page though though. Hopefully Andrew can shine some light on that. But before that, I'm sure it'd be fine to start organizing and work together, as long as we don't publish anything officially. Thoughts about collecting an initial unofficial github list, get an overview, and start looking at the projects out there, to get started? Tbh we're at a stage where we have to hunt down and copy/paste everyones github page to a private list at this point in order to keep track. It'd be better if everyone wanting to do this can write their github page, i.e. in this thread with words that they're into this idea, in a sense signing up for this community co-awareness with a github link posted here, so that those not interested don't automatically get included. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/221df25f-e80f-4401-b6bd-f9675ec6494d%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[qubes-users] Re: For community by community - A way to preserve/focus everyones work going into Qubes, bottom-up
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:43:19 AM UTC+1, Yuraeitha wrote: > This isn't directed directly at anyone in particular, but I don't get why > there is all the fuss about a quality issue though, after all, these > guides/scripts are meant to have many eyes on them and critical views. Like > others have said too. Take for example the suggestion with the multiple > sub-forums having moderator volunteers (who have proper insight) moving them > along as they mature. This would heighten the quality, by only accepting > guides/scripts which had proper review of knowledgeable people, would be put > forward. Similar can be done with individual works too, which can be put > under review before acknowledged. > > NASA is doing something similar to this for their research projects, although > it does hinder their innovation, but it does increase efficiency on cost and > reliability of projects, while still preserving some levels of innovation in > it. > > The point here, is that nothing gets through the process before it had proper > review, it will only come through if it has a certain quality to it. If > creators misses something important, or ignores vital security/reliability > implications, this will more likely than not be caught in the review process. > Also the review system could be made so that it can withdraw it's > acknowledgments, thereby if anyone should ever finds a reliability/security > issue, it can be taken back as well. > > If people run un-reviewed or criticized guides/scripts, despite being warned > not to, or to be careful and try to understand what the script/guides does > before executing it, then if they don't do that, it's their own fault. > > What worries me a bit, are self-fulfilling prophecies, by being worried about > an issue, that the person essentially creates the issue by focusing too hard > on it. Many of these issues we can solve, it's not rocket science, they're > not impossible obstacles that can't be overcome. The problem though, is if > some don't want to consider the whole full complete picture, and focuses too > hard on their self-fulfilling prophecies. We need to take a step back and > reflect more on a holistic and abstract level, before returning to the > details again, and then constantly shape the big picture until it improves. > > If guides/scripts are constantly checked and corrected every time someone > finds a flaw in them, then what's the issue? Why is this issue blown so much > out of proportion? We're talking about a review system no one else is doing > on the internet here (maybe I overlooked it, the internet is massive, but > it's not common knowledge at least). > > Generally, the criticism that follow other poor guides/scripts on the > internet, does not automatically warrant criticism of guides that are put > through an open review system like this. > > I don't want to see criticisms born from examples of other places, when a > review suggestion is different from any of these places the criticisms are > born. Lets be practical about this, we can't just move criticisms from one > place to another, without first taking into account if the system produces > the same issues or not. I'm not saying this to any particular person, but an > attempt to try get back on the ground again, we're moving too far into the > details without looking at the big picture. <-- if a person does that too > much, they become legitimately insane as a result, so too a discussion can > become insane too. We need some practical reality checks here and stay on the > ground. > > It's a bit of irony that wanting closed development by few developers only, > kind of echo's the mentality of closed proprietary code, rather than the > mentality of open source. The whole idea of open source code, is reviews and > checks, this is just a shift towards doing the same with guides/scripts as > well. I mean, if anyone think the NASA approach is flawed, good luck trying to argue against it without some pretty solid reasoning. It's true that innovation is hindered some (but not totally), but they do manage to cut down cost and increase reliability. So too, the same should be for open community scripts/guides. It'd be exactly the same NASA is doing for their development projects. Who is still saying it will produce bad guides/scripts? I mean, if anything, these checks do increase the reliability/security. Taking examples from elsewhere on the internet is futile and pointless, because no one (or very few) are doing the same as NASA is doing to ensure quality checks. And this is essentially what is being proposed here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visi
[qubes-users] Re: For community by community - A way to preserve/focus everyones work going into Qubes, bottom-up
This isn't directed directly at anyone in particular, but I don't get why there is all the fuss about a quality issue though, after all, these guides/scripts are meant to have many eyes on them and critical views. Like others have said too. Take for example the suggestion with the multiple sub-forums having moderator volunteers (who have proper insight) moving them along as they mature. This would heighten the quality, by only accepting guides/scripts which had proper review of knowledgeable people, would be put forward. Similar can be done with individual works too, which can be put under review before acknowledged. NASA is doing something similar to this for their research projects, although it does hinder their innovation, but it does increase efficiency on cost and reliability of projects, while still preserving some levels of innovation in it. The point here, is that nothing gets through the process before it had proper review, it will only come through if it has a certain quality to it. If creators misses something important, or ignores vital security/reliability implications, this will more likely than not be caught in the review process. Also the review system could be made so that it can withdraw it's acknowledgments, thereby if anyone should ever finds a reliability/security issue, it can be taken back as well. If people run un-reviewed or criticized guides/scripts, despite being warned not to, or to be careful and try to understand what the script/guides does before executing it, then if they don't do that, it's their own fault. What worries me a bit, are self-fulfilling prophecies, by being worried about an issue, that the person essentially creates the issue by focusing too hard on it. Many of these issues we can solve, it's not rocket science, they're not impossible obstacles that can't be overcome. The problem though, is if some don't want to consider the whole full complete picture, and focuses too hard on their self-fulfilling prophecies. We need to take a step back and reflect more on a holistic and abstract level, before returning to the details again, and then constantly shape the big picture until it improves. If guides/scripts are constantly checked and corrected every time someone finds a flaw in them, then what's the issue? Why is this issue blown so much out of proportion? We're talking about a review system no one else is doing on the internet here (maybe I overlooked it, the internet is massive, but it's not common knowledge at least). Generally, the criticism that follow other poor guides/scripts on the internet, does not automatically warrant criticism of guides that are put through an open review system like this. I don't want to see criticisms born from examples of other places, when a review suggestion is different from any of these places the criticisms are born. Lets be practical about this, we can't just move criticisms from one place to another, without first taking into account if the system produces the same issues or not. I'm not saying this to any particular person, but an attempt to try get back on the ground again, we're moving too far into the details without looking at the big picture. <-- if a person does that too much, they become legitimately insane as a result, so too a discussion can become insane too. We need some practical reality checks here and stay on the ground. It's a bit of irony that wanting closed development by few developers only, kind of echo's the mentality of closed proprietary code, rather than the mentality of open source. The whole idea of open source code, is reviews and checks, this is just a shift towards doing the same with guides/scripts as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/730a36c9-8a8c-46fc-ae4b-1d87b9ad776f%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
