On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:18 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. So you say. Yes Lou I have proposed something that *will* accomplish the same result. And without changing anything. And I have mentioned it three times. And you keep denying it. ONE OF MY PROPOSALS 88SHOULD*8 A PROBLEM BE MANIFEST: SINCE Aaron is using donated funds to improve things, then we should FIRST be looking at ways to improve that donation system, because there has NOT been either a targeted or focused fundraising effort to date. I even told Aaron that I would donate a sum he would be thrilled to have, he ONLY had to ask me for it here. He has not asked me. Others have asked me if I was serious about this on the TU irc channel, so the fact that you missed this is telling. I am sure others, IF ASKED, would do the same as me and donate as needed. And NO, a link onth e home page is NOT the same thing. i.e. If you guys put the same vigor and effort into promoting a fundraising effort, you would have the resources to host all manner of binary packages MUCH AS OTHER DISTROS DO WITHOUT A NEED TO CULL OUT THINGS AS A FIRST STEP. > > > > 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. There is no evidence of what you claim. None presented to us for consideration to date. > > > 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: Not at all the same thing. And you know it. > > > >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. > > Lou, you are NOT anything more than coming off as cute with what you are doing above. How about at least being honest about people NOT wanting your proposal to be a first or even a second consideration for problems. Can you simply acknowledge that ? I am NOT alone in my crtique. Regards; Bob Finch
