On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Loui Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 10:47:24AM -0700, w9ya wrote: >> Well IF you go back far enough into the mail archives (which may NOT be >> possible at this time because of current issues with that system) you WILL >> run across those discussions about the voting being added to the TU/Aur >> system. At that time we were SPECIFICALLY told that this would not be used >> for restrictions in the future. Writing about that now is NOT being >> dishonest. It is rather DIRECTLY related to what you propose. > > Things change Bob. Nothing in this world is set in stone, and most of us > probably never made those promises. We can't be held to them. > >> As for not giving your proposal a chance. Your very correct about that. I >> CHOOSE not to give it a chance. That is NOT however dishonest either. It is >> not a bad thing to speak out about a proposal one does not like and sees >> other way to accomplish the same result. > > You've proposed nothing that accomplishes the same result. > >> I know it seems like a circular argument, but that is because your proposal >> BEGS for a reason, and simply putting faith into a faithless entity like an >> exceptional poor tool like the aurvotes is the heart of the matter with your >> proposal. Even people supporting your proposal are quick to point out that >> the aurvotes stinks as any form of metric. >> >> You should FIRST come up with a useful tool and then a need to make the repo >> more "efficient", THEN and ONLY THEN shoudl you be asking us to consider >> such a proposal. > > I have no problem with using votes as a metric. > Three stats have been proposed: votes, pkgstats, and downloads. > We are using two of those three. Downloads aren't quite feasible because > they raise privacy concerns and there are technical problems in counting > them. They'd probably show similar results anyways.
Don't forget a "fourth" metric: my personal favorite, automated votes :). > When I see a problem I do what's in my power to correct it. > If you have a problem with any of the stats that we are using, then you > should suggest something else. Then again, your issue isn't really with > the metric, it's with the proposal itself. That's why you haven't > offered anything in cooperation to this discussion. > > Considering your opinion of votes I wonder why you were so concerned > about votes here: > > >From http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2008-February/000741.html >> P.S.... Will it be possible to retain or reinstate the 250-odd votes >> this >> package received ?; as it is now NOT extent in either unsupported OR the >> community repo, and it would be nice to be able to properly reflect the >> voting. > >
