[aur-general] TU Application - Konstantin Gizdov

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Hello,

I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
(`kgizdov`, `***@kge.pw`, `***@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

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
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

[Sven-Hendrik Haase]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Hello,
I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.
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.
o python-awkward
o libafterimage
o xxhash
o unuran
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
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.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

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

Post by Sven-Hendrik Haase

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Hello,
I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.
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.
o python-awkward
o libafterimage
o xxhash
o unuran
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
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.

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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 ;)

[Levente Polyak via aur-general]

Hey Konstantin,

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Levente Polyak via aur-general
Hey Konstantin,

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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

[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?

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
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.

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.**

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
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?

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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".

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.**

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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 via aur-general]

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
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?

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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".

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.**

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

You call me "passive aggressive" and a "whiny baby"... Everything I say
must be with some hidden malicious intent, right?

You have to defend yourself and I don't??

I'm sorry Eli, but I have told no lies about you. I and everyone here
has emails with dates and hours showing a sequence of events - I sent my
initial email at 9pm, you re-opening the bug at 3am UK. Everyone can
check that.

This is the last email I sent to you about this - thread is public anyway.

[Doug Newgard via aur-general]

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

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
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

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:29:31 +0100

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html
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
"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.

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034279.html

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.
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.

[Maksim Fomin via aur-general]

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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
"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".
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.

[Doug Newgard via aur-general]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:09:50 +0000

Post by Maksim Fomin via aur-general
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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
"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".
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.

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Maksim Fomin via aur-general
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 via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Doug Newgard via aur-general
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.

[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?

[Dan Beste via aur-general]

Post by Jerome Leclanche
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.

Post by Jerome Leclanche
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.

[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

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by 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

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

[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

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by 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.

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.

Post by Christos Nouskas
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.

Post by Christos Nouskas
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
fact, everyone deserves the right to try and be convincing even if no
one feels convinced.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general

Post by 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.

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.

Post by Christos Nouskas
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.
"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.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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?

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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 continue
to assert that the backlash I received was disproportionate (as I showed
from examples from other people's responses) and I have continued to
defend myself since then.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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.

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.' -
to which I have possibly replied - 'OK, it was late evening Sunday and I
didn't wanna leave it for the beginning of the week'. I am not a trusted
user, I am not first-hand familiar with how everything is handled. I do
not send emails every day. In fact, if you look in the history, I only
send emails when I think there's a problem I have tried to fix, failed
to address it myself and looking for advice.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general

Post by Christos Nouskas
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
fact, everyone deserves the right to try and be convincing even if no
one feels convinced.

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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.
"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...

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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).

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
I tried to re-open all 3 bugs but was denied with
little to no comment/explanation.
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
So all bugs were closed & denied to re-open until I made a fuss about
it here. That to me is 'denied'.
It was not denied to reopen. It was reopened as soon as you asked for
the first time.
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!

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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!

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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 could not have said that. Do not send emails, period. The mailing
list is not the bugtracker, and posting to the mailing list does *not*
get your issue fixed. The mailing list is a self-help forum for *users*,
to which developers, trusted users, and other staff members may or may
not be subscribed (we are users too, and many of us are subscribed). We
do *not* encourage bug reports on the mailing list, and the only thing
the mailing list is good for (save for aur-general, but not
arch-general, serving double purpose as the Trusted User voting booth
under certain circumstances) is to maybe try to get an idea of
"happening things in the Arch Linux community". This is a *horrible* way
to get formal process in any package at all, but a great way to tell
random Arch *users* everywhere about whatever is on your mind.

At the absolute minimum, check the bug report to see if the re-open
request has been rejected, and if it has been, feel free to email us
*privately* to resolve the matter. Or reach out to us on the active IRC
channel.

If it is still pending, do *not* bother people about it, until at least
a minimum of more than 7 hours has passed since the time you originally
opened the bug. In fact, let's be extra generous and wait at least 5
days since the re-open request was filed -- so, 5 days and somewhere up
to 6 hours.

I think this waiting thing is pretty reasonable. In fact, I think it is
common sense! Especially the "wait more than 6 hours" bit.

What I don't think is reasonable, is when during the course of that

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Well, I wasn't trying to be confrontational. I felt I was being
shunned and tried to be explicit in why I'm writing the email and what
bothered me. Sorry, if someone was offended.

So because you felt shunned, you ignored due process and ended up
providing a couple potential reasons for someone potentially wanting to
maybe shun you, when they had no problem with you beforehand.

If this is your reaction to being shunned one time, what will happen the
next time you feel shunned?

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
to which I have possibly replied - 'OK, it was late evening Sunday and I
didn't wanna leave it for the beginning of the week'.

You didn't want to leave it for the beginning of the week, so you
desperately CC'ed aur-/g/eneral in under 7 hours from beginning to end
of the entire history of your three bugs, asking why we didn't evaluate
based on meritocratic merit within those 7 hours:
- your second re-open request
- the bug you accidentally thought needed similar evaluation

and additionally decided that the best way to determine how to properly
handle a package *not being moved to community* (upload it to the AUR
yourself?) is to publicly complain/ask that the bug was erroneously
rejected? Did you try emailing Felix Yan privately to ask what his
philosophical approach to the package would be? Did you try asking how
best to handle an AUR package that is the python2 analogue to a
[community] python3 one, without implying via reference to your "denied
resolution" bug that the blame is on the [community] repository for
failing to provide your rightful python2 analogue?

I'm sorry our legendary bleeding-edge response time got delayed by 9
hours. </sarcasm>

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
I am not a trusted
user, I am not first-hand familiar with how everything is handled. I do
not send emails every day. In fact, if you look in the history, I only
send emails when I think there's a problem I have tried to fix, failed
to address it myself and looking for advice.

You keep saying "looking for advice" and I keep seeing "posting to the
mailing list with an assertion that the bugs you reported were
incorrectly denied".

[Baptiste Jonglez]

(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

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

Post by Baptiste Jonglez

(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?

[Jerome Leclanche]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:03 PM Daniel M. Capella via aur-general

Post by Daniel M. Capella via aur-general

Post by Baptiste Jonglez

(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

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Post by Daniel M. Capella via aur-general

Post by Baptiste Jonglez

(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?

Thank you Daniel -- I actually discover that we *do* have a code of
conduct, this is good news:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Code_of_conduct#Code_of_conduct

It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in this
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and "Be
responsible".

Baptiste

[Morten Linderud via aur-general]

Post by Daniel M. Capella via aur-general
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.

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Morten Linderud via aur-general
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.

Post by Morten Linderud via aur-general
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
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 quality of your work or
the quality of your technical opinions in general. In fact your are both
much more knowledgeable and active in Arch than most people including me.
But that is certainly not a valid reason to start bullying people around,
or else I am grossly mistaken about this whole community.
As a general rule, when nobody stands up publicly against a bully, the
bully will just continue bullying people the same way in the future,
perhaps even more confidently.
Of course, we can also bury our head in the sand and pride ourselves that
our community is "friendly and welcoming" (I think this is still true on
the whole btw) while leaving the bullies act unchecked. Santiago, I don't
mean this as a personal attack on you, I just think that it's a bad idea
to sweep such unacceptable personal behaviour under the carpet as if
nothing happened.
Quite frankly, in the future I am considering taking whatever actions are
necessary to make sure that this kind of hurtful behaviour doesn't happen
again, including asking for the bully's resignation or resigning myself.
I hope that we will find ways to work things out without having to resort
to such extremes.
Discussing these problems seems like a good start

What really got me angry was the fact that after a *month*, an incorrect
statement about me was still being insisted upon (and never mind an
apology...). I took offense at what I deemed an insult, and lost my
temper. I'll maintain that I did not intend my messages to be perceived
as personal attacks, but rather, intended them to reflect on
interactions which were directly pertinent to the voting at hand.

I've always felt it is important to state my beliefs. And I am not good
at hiding my meaning beneath layers of politicians' doublespeak; this
means when I'm genuinely angry at someone, you'll be able to tell.

I don't believe anything I've done constitutes "bullying". I don't
engage in the kind of discrimination repeatedly making political
headlines. I've always considered myself very welcoming to anyone
willing to learn; I've patiently and cheerfully guided lots of people
through making their PKGBUILDs better, often pretty terrible PKGBUILDs
too, I offer help on issue discussions I know about, and spend
significant amounts of time on the various support fora *trying to help
people* (I didn't get 2500 BBS posts by just being idly rude to people
al day), etc. and all I ask is that others make a token effort to listen
to what I say, and that they be willing to learn. I'm generally
unconcerned about non-technical matters. I don't even curse.

What I have been known to do, is react harshly to people I feel have
violated my sense of what is right -- and usually that means I least
perceive them as either being unwilling to learn or flat-out ignoring
the actual content of what I say when responding to me.
I tend to get very technical in the process, because the mechanics of
how things work are dear to me. I tend to get very technical about most
of the non-confrontational interactions I have too. Apparently my being
articulate in a technical distribution is seen as making things worse,
though, because "smart and articulate people make the best bullies". I'm
not sure how to respond to that.

Ultimately I was unable to let go and should have let it end with my
initial response, and I apologize for letting things spiral out of
control. I can only promise to try to keep an eye on the tone in which I
interact in the future, but I do make that promise.

[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.

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

Post by 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.

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.

[Daniel M. Capella via aur-general]

Post by 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.

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.

[Baptiste Jonglez]

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.

Post by Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general
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 quality of your work or
the quality of your technical opinions in general. In fact your are both
much more knowledgeable and active in Arch than most people including me.
But that is certainly not a valid reason to start bullying people around,
or else I am grossly mistaken about this whole community.

As a general rule, when nobody stands up publicly against a bully, the
bully will just continue bullying people the same way in the future,
perhaps even more confidently.

Of course, we can also bury our head in the sand and pride ourselves that
our community is "friendly and welcoming" (I think this is still true on
the whole btw) while leaving the bullies act unchecked. Santiago, I don't
mean this as a personal attack on you, I just think that it's a bad idea
to sweep such unacceptable personal behaviour under the carpet as if
nothing happened.

Quite frankly, in the future I am considering taking whatever actions are
necessary to make sure that this kind of hurtful behaviour doesn't happen
again, including asking for the bully's resignation or resigning myself.
I hope that we will find ways to work things out without having to resort
to such extremes.

Discussing these problems seems like a good start :)

Baptiste

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

As an outsider sitting on the sidelines, with absolutely no dog in this
fight, I have to say that I don't believe that the messages you linked are
examples of bullying or personal attacks. The closest I saw to a personal
attack might be Eli saying that Konstantin is a control freak. I believe
that could have been said more diplomatically and professionally but it
strikes me as a legitimate consideration in the context of whether to admit
a new TU that all other TUs would theoretically have to work along side.

The emails included strong language. Nothing was sugar coated, and efforts
to be polite had ceased at that point in the exchange. We probably have
different definitions of bullying, but from my perspective those emails
should not qualify as bullying. Additionally two or more people agreeing
with each other and backing each other up doesn't constitute ganging up,
let alone violently. I'm not sure those are well defined concepts in this
context anyway. What is the difference between supporting each other's
positions and "ganging up"? How does one have a "violent" email exchange?
Those descriptions are metaphorical, to say the least, and I would go so
far as to say that they are hyperbole.

Trusted Users are in a position of power. I do believe that they should
strive to behave diplomatically and patiently. I think it is more fair and
accurate to say that Eli and Doug were less diplomatic and patient than
would appear professional to most outside observers. I don't think that
makes them bullies or violent, to borrow your language. If those
accusations are to be substantiated we need to agree on what they mean
first.

I don't understand what you mean by bullying.

I was bullied as a kid. We're all nerds here. Chances are we all had a
bully as a kid. If my bully had been as articulate as what was displayed in
these emails then I'm not sure he would have even been effective as a
bully. Chances are we probably would have gotten along better because he
would have been talking to me directly using mostly logical arguments. But
no, my bully called me names and made fun of me. At one point he was
physically violent. That's not to say that I don't think bullying can't
happen over digital communication, I just can't reconcile my understanding
of bullying with what is being described here as such.

Post by Baptiste Jonglez
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.

Post by Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general
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
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 quality of your work or
the quality of your technical opinions in general. In fact your are both
much more knowledgeable and active in Arch than most people including me.
But that is certainly not a valid reason to start bullying people around,
or else I am grossly mistaken about this whole community.
As a general rule, when nobody stands up publicly against a bully, the
bully will just continue bullying people the same way in the future,
perhaps even more confidently.
Of course, we can also bury our head in the sand and pride ourselves that
our community is "friendly and welcoming" (I think this is still true on
the whole btw) while leaving the bullies act unchecked. Santiago, I don't
mean this as a personal attack on you, I just think that it's a bad idea
to sweep such unacceptable personal behaviour under the carpet as if
nothing happened.
Quite frankly, in the future I am considering taking whatever actions are
necessary to make sure that this kind of hurtful behaviour doesn't happen
again, including asking for the bully's resignation or resigning myself.
I hope that we will find ways to work things out without having to resort
to such extremes.
Discussing these problems seems like a good start :)
Baptiste

[Konstantin Gizdov]

I will make this as brief as I can, even though I feel there is a lot to
talk about.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
As an outsider sitting on the sidelines, with absolutely no dog in this
fight, I have to say that I don't believe that the messages you linked are
examples of bullying or personal attacks.

Even if you are 100% correct, there were a lot of other messages, not
just the linked ones. I think you should try and make a broader argument
based on broader observations, but I do understand that you can still
end up with the same conclusion. It's just not fair to judge the whole
situation like this, I believe.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
The closest I saw to a personal
attack might be Eli saying that Konstantin is a control freak. I believe
that could have been said more diplomatically and professionally but it
strikes me as a legitimate consideration in the context of whether to admit
a new TU that all other TUs would theoretically have to work along side.

So me being a blatant liar, having some sort of dark agenda, being a
whiny baby and passive aggressive are not personal insults, etc.?
Whenever, I tried to make a point I was assumed to have nefarious
motives and was insulted and my character attacked.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
The emails included strong language. Nothing was sugar coated, and efforts
to be polite had ceased at that point in the exchange.

From the first email answer to me there were no efforts to be polite
(from the people in question). I actually tried to respond to bring the
discussion about the questions I asked rather than what the discussion
suddenly turned to.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
We probably have
different definitions of bullying, but from my perspective those emails
should not qualify as bullying. Additionally two or more people agreeing
with each other and backing each other up doesn't constitute ganging up,
let alone violently. I'm not sure those are well defined concepts in this
context anyway. What is the difference between supporting each other's
positions and "ganging up"? How does one have a "violent" email exchange?
Those descriptions are metaphorical, to say the least, and I would go so
far as to say that they are hyperbole.

While I would normally agree that just because two people being in
agreement is not ganging up, in this case, persisting with increasing
intensity to attack me, call me names and imply horrible things about
what I stand for cannot possibly be about anything else.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Trusted Users are in a position of power. I do believe that they should
strive to behave diplomatically and patiently. I think it is more fair and
accurate to say that Eli and Doug were less diplomatic and patient than
would appear professional to most outside observers. I don't think that
makes them bullies or violent, to borrow your language. If those
accusations are to be substantiated we need to agree on what they mean
first.

To this moment I have kept quiet about this, but I think I cannot do
this anymore. I have been emailed privately by people who have
experienced the same sort of things from the same people. They emailed
me just to comfort me, because I think they understand how it feels and
what it does to you. Thank you, to those ones, for lending a shoulder.
They did not say anything publicly on the list for fear of the same
persecution and lash back. I call for them to say something now as I
cannot in clear conscience call them out and put them into this myself.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
I don't understand what you mean by bullying.

I think what he means is the weeks on end attacks at my character and
not actually discussing my initial email - which was about what the
available, correct and appropriate ways are to pass on what I know about
a package I depend on in my daily life. Please read my initial email and
tell me if you would have responded the same way they did and then say
what would be the correct way to respond to anyone, not just me, in that
situation.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
I was bullied as a kid. We're all nerds here.

I am sorry to hear that happened to you. It really should not happen to
anyone. But what exactly is your point? Are you claiming that because
you were bullied then you can decide for everyone else universally if
they are being bullied? Or nerds can't be bullies? I don't mean to
offend or attack you. I just don't understand your point. If you are
trying to sympathise/empathise, I personally do not think you have
understood how I feel. Possibly clarify.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Chances are we all had a
bully as a kid. If my bully had been as articulate as what was displayed in
these emails then I'm not sure he would have even been effective as a
bully.

Smart and articulate people make the best bullies. They can really get
you where it hurts and lasts. I think that's been proven many times.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Chances are we probably would have gotten along better because he
would have been talking to me directly using mostly logical arguments. But
no, my bully called me names and made fun of me.

That's exactly what happened here.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
At one point he was
physically violent. That's not to say that I don't think bullying can't
happen over digital communication, I just can't reconcile my understanding
of bullying with what is being described here as such.

Now I will take the time to say something.

I have never imagined myself in this position and do not wish it upon
anyone.

I sent an email in which I specifically said I did not understand how
things work and was asking for advice. Now I am here. I did not claim I
was being bullied, other people made that observation. But if anyone
thinks that it did not hurt to the point where now I am barely able to
hit the keys as I type this and shaking, then you are wrong. Deeply
wrong. I will not say whether or not the whole situation qualifies as
bullying or anything else, this is not the point I think. All I know is
how I feel.

I say this:
- I did not initially intended to apply as a TU, was just looking for a
way to make sure stuff works as-is or better; I think as a person one
has to be pretty insecure to think this means I am attacking anyone's
abilities
- I applied for a TU as no other alternative was presented to me that I
felt was enough in the particular case; that does not mean I am
dismissing the current available ways in any way
- I do not pertain that I deserve the post, that's left to the voters
- I do claim that anyone should be able to apply regardless of how good
they are, the rules only require a sponsor
- I do not want to introduce friction in the internal team, I want to
bring something to it
- I am not complaining about the current team and their expertise and
never implied otherwise

Regardless if I get accepted as TU or not, regardless of the fact I have
"the stuff" or not, regardless if people think I have "problematic
behaviour" or however it was called, regardless of anything else, I will
not stand for this and as this emailing list is public I will try my
best to make sure it does not happen to anyone else. **Until things
change or I get banned, of course**

I am dropping this thread now, I leave it to everyone to take it as they
will.

Regards,
Konstantin

[Ethan Rakoff]

Just thought I would cap this whole shebang off with this:

Remember that as technical people working on a project that spans the world, we communicate almost exclusively through text, and it can be easy to misinterpret the tone of someone else. We should all make an effort to remember this in writing and in reading.

Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance or misunderstanding.

It doesn't matter who was right or wrong, it's always good to behave diplomatically.

----------------
Ethan Rakoff

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
I will make this as brief as I can, even though I feel there is a lot to
talk about.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
As an outsider sitting on the sidelines, with absolutely no dog in this
fight, I have to say that I don't believe that the messages you linked are
examples of bullying or personal attacks.

Even if you are 100% correct, there were a lot of other messages, not
just the linked ones. I think you should try and make a broader argument
based on broader observations, but I do understand that you can still
end up with the same conclusion. It's just not fair to judge the whole
situation like this, I believe.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
The closest I saw to a personal
attack might be Eli saying that Konstantin is a control freak. I believe
that could have been said more diplomatically and professionally but it
strikes me as a legitimate consideration in the context of whether to admit
a new TU that all other TUs would theoretically have to work along side.

So me being a blatant liar, having some sort of dark agenda, being a
whiny baby and passive aggressive are not personal insults, etc.?
Whenever, I tried to make a point I was assumed to have nefarious
motives and was insulted and my character attacked.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
The emails included strong language. Nothing was sugar coated, and efforts
to be polite had ceased at that point in the exchange.

From the first email answer to me there were no efforts to be polite
(from the people in question). I actually tried to respond to bring the
discussion about the questions I asked rather than what the discussion
suddenly turned to.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
We probably have
different definitions of bullying, but from my perspective those emails
should not qualify as bullying. Additionally two or more people agreeing
with each other and backing each other up doesn't constitute ganging up,
let alone violently. I'm not sure those are well defined concepts in this
context anyway. What is the difference between supporting each other's
positions and "ganging up"? How does one have a "violent" email exchange?
Those descriptions are metaphorical, to say the least, and I would go so
far as to say that they are hyperbole.

While I would normally agree that just because two people being in
agreement is not ganging up, in this case, persisting with increasing
intensity to attack me, call me names and imply horrible things about
what I stand for cannot possibly be about anything else.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Trusted Users are in a position of power. I do believe that they should
strive to behave diplomatically and patiently. I think it is more fair and
accurate to say that Eli and Doug were less diplomatic and patient than
would appear professional to most outside observers. I don't think that
makes them bullies or violent, to borrow your language. If those
accusations are to be substantiated we need to agree on what they mean
first.

To this moment I have kept quiet about this, but I think I cannot do
this anymore. I have been emailed privately by people who have
experienced the same sort of things from the same people. They emailed
me just to comfort me, because I think they understand how it feels and
what it does to you. Thank you, to those ones, for lending a shoulder.
They did not say anything publicly on the list for fear of the same
persecution and lash back. I call for them to say something now as I
cannot in clear conscience call them out and put them into this myself.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
I don't understand what you mean by bullying.

I think what he means is the weeks on end attacks at my character and
not actually discussing my initial email - which was about what the
available, correct and appropriate ways are to pass on what I know about
a package I depend on in my daily life. Please read my initial email and
tell me if you would have responded the same way they did and then say
what would be the correct way to respond to anyone, not just me, in that
situation.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
I was bullied as a kid. We're all nerds here.

I am sorry to hear that happened to you. It really should not happen to
anyone. But what exactly is your point? Are you claiming that because
you were bullied then you can decide for everyone else universally if
they are being bullied? Or nerds can't be bullies? I don't mean to
offend or attack you. I just don't understand your point. If you are
trying to sympathise/empathise, I personally do not think you have
understood how I feel. Possibly clarify.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Chances are we all had a
bully as a kid. If my bully had been as articulate as what was displayed in
these emails then I'm not sure he would have even been effective as a
bully.

Smart and articulate people make the best bullies. They can really get
you where it hurts and lasts. I think that's been proven many times.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Chances are we probably would have gotten along better because he
would have been talking to me directly using mostly logical arguments. But
no, my bully called me names and made fun of me.

That's exactly what happened here.

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
At one point he was
physically violent. That's not to say that I don't think bullying can't
happen over digital communication, I just can't reconcile my understanding
of bullying with what is being described here as such.

Now I will take the time to say something.
I have never imagined myself in this position and do not wish it upon
anyone.
I sent an email in which I specifically said I did not understand how
things work and was asking for advice. Now I am here. I did not claim I
was being bullied, other people made that observation. But if anyone
thinks that it did not hurt to the point where now I am barely able to
hit the keys as I type this and shaking, then you are wrong. Deeply
wrong. I will not say whether or not the whole situation qualifies as
bullying or anything else, this is not the point I think. All I know is
how I feel.
- I did not initially intended to apply as a TU, was just looking for a
way to make sure stuff works as-is or better; I think as a person one
has to be pretty insecure to think this means I am attacking anyone's
abilities
- I applied for a TU as no other alternative was presented to me that I
felt was enough in the particular case; that does not mean I am
dismissing the current available ways in any way
- I do not pertain that I deserve the post, that's left to the voters
- I do claim that anyone should be able to apply regardless of how good
they are, the rules only require a sponsor
- I do not want to introduce friction in the internal team, I want to
bring something to it
- I am not complaining about the current team and their expertise and
never implied otherwise
Regardless if I get accepted as TU or not, regardless of the fact I have
"the stuff" or not, regardless if people think I have "problematic
behaviour" or however it was called, regardless of anything else, I will
not stand for this and as this emailing list is public I will try my
best to make sure it does not happen to anyone else. Until things
change or I get banned, of course
I am dropping this thread now, I leave it to everyone to take it as they
will.
Regards,
Konstantin

[Brett Cornwall via aur-general]

Post by Ethan Rakoff
Remember that as technical people working on a project that spans the
world, we communicate almost exclusively through text, and it can be
easy to misinterpret the tone of someone else. We should all make an
effort to remember this in writing and in reading.
Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance or misunderstanding.

This went beyond a simple misunderstanding in medium. It's dripping with
anger!

I understand - and actually prefer - truth and correctness when
soliciting help from others. Blunt is fine: It's quick and to-the-point.
I am not fond of overly-inclusive communities that effectively censor
criticism because it might hurt feelings.

However...

I spent so long formally submitting my application after the initial
mix-up because I wasn't sure I wanted to get reamed in a similar manner
- "Does everyone react this way?", I thought. I had urges to speak out
but I was afraid that this was just 'how it is'. When things went off
the rails I considered withdrawing.

Perhaps I won't make TU status but it might be of value to this
community to know that this made an applicant think twice about joining.


I do appreciate Eli apologizing on the other thread. I can relate to the
anger stemming from caring too much - I sometimes have to walk away from
my keyboard for the same reason.

[Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general]

Post by Baptiste Jonglez
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.

Hi Baptiste.

I read your email, and I do agree with your picture in general. I don't
intend to "sweep anything under the rug" but rather keep two things
separate:

1. A TU application
2. A discussion about the way some members of our community approach
their peers.*

I personally want to keep both conversations separate, mostly because I
think the latter could be better handled internally.

Thanks,
-Santiago.

* I don't say names here because I'm sure this is not the
only instance of this happening.

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Even if you are 100% correct, there were a lot of other messages, not
just the linked ones.

First I want to mention that I did in fact read all of the emails, but
presumably someone trying to make a point about bullying in those
emails would have linked to the most contentious ones. So those are
the ones I reviewed prior to writing my first email.

As I recall when I was initially reading that chain, I tended to agree
with the points that Eli was making. I trust his assessment of what
transpired with your bug reports and I agree with his assessment of
your complaints regarding how your AUR packages were handled. Frankly
reputation and standing do matter here. I have seen Eli be very curt
with people in the past and I am not surprised that people have taken
offense. But I haven't ever seen Eli do this without some
justification, normally that the person in question is ignorant of
policies and procedures in a context where they have a responsibility
to be informed. I have also seen Eli admit mistakes when he was wrong.
So when I read what he wrote about how you were reopening bug requests
that had been repeatedly closed I tended to believe him over you. It
is totally reasonable to make a character judgement based on
reputation and social standing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems
that you are saying that Eli was lying or deceitful or
mis-characterizing the situation.

I don't generally agree with Eli's tact but I don't agree that it
crossed a line into bullying. I feel that now you are
mis-characterizing what transpired. But there is some grey area here
and room for interpretation so I'll grant you that. I certainly don't
think calling you a liar is a fair assessment, nor is that at all
productive in nearly any context.

My point about being bullied in the past is that I have a hard time
seeing how anything that was said constitutes bullying. But as I
pointed out, we don't have a well-defined definition of bullying, or
ganging up, or violent emailing. So could we be more specific? Saying
that you are whining is not bullying. In fact if you are repeatedly
trying to complain about something that has already been addressed, or
cannot be changed, or is outside of the scope of a conversation, then
yeah I would agree that is whining. But again, whining is not a
technical term, so I agree Eli took some liberty with that tact. Again
I don't agree with that approach. But again, that's not bullying in my
view.

I'm sorry that this ordeal has caused you distress, to say the least.
However, this community doesn't exist to cater to people's feelings.
We should be considerate of feelings insofar as it helps us all get
along and be more productive, but there will always be times when the
people in charge here will want to do things in a way that some users
disagree with. Sometimes that gets communicated in a way that rubs
people the wrong way and causes some hurt feelings. That's not ideal
but it's not uncommon that after a user hears an explanation they
don't agree with that they start to argue endlessly. I'd rather Eli's
time, and all of the other TU's time, be spent on doing what they are
best at: maintaining Arch. If that means that they spend a little less
time being exceptionally thoughtful about other people's feelings who
are repeatedly trying to argue with him, then I am personally OK with
that.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:54 AM Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Baptiste Jonglez
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.

Hi Baptiste.
I read your email, and I do agree with your picture in general. I don't
intend to "sweep anything under the rug" but rather keep two things
1. A TU application
2. A discussion about the way some members of our community approach
their peers.*
I personally want to keep both conversations separate, mostly because I
think the latter could be better handled internally.
Thanks,
-Santiago.
* I don't say names here because I'm sure this is not the
only instance of this happening.

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

Apologies for my mis-formatted email. You may need to expand the
quoted text to read it. I think I goofed it.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:52 AM Adam Levy

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Even if you are 100% correct, there were a lot of other messages, not
just the linked ones.

First I want to mention that I did in fact read all of the emails, but
presumably someone trying to make a point about bullying in those
emails would have linked to the most contentious ones. So those are
the ones I reviewed prior to writing my first email.
As I recall when I was initially reading that chain, I tended to agree
with the points that Eli was making. I trust his assessment of what
transpired with your bug reports and I agree with his assessment of
your complaints regarding how your AUR packages were handled. Frankly
reputation and standing do matter here. I have seen Eli be very curt
with people in the past and I am not surprised that people have taken
offense. But I haven't ever seen Eli do this without some
justification, normally that the person in question is ignorant of
policies and procedures in a context where they have a responsibility
to be informed. I have also seen Eli admit mistakes when he was wrong.
So when I read what he wrote about how you were reopening bug requests
that had been repeatedly closed I tended to believe him over you. It
is totally reasonable to make a character judgement based on
reputation and social standing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems
that you are saying that Eli was lying or deceitful or
mis-characterizing the situation.
I don't generally agree with Eli's tact but I don't agree that it
crossed a line into bullying. I feel that now you are
mis-characterizing what transpired. But there is some grey area here
and room for interpretation so I'll grant you that. I certainly don't
think calling you a liar is a fair assessment, nor is that at all
productive in nearly any context.
My point about being bullied in the past is that I have a hard time
seeing how anything that was said constitutes bullying. But as I
pointed out, we don't have a well-defined definition of bullying, or
ganging up, or violent emailing. So could we be more specific? Saying
that you are whining is not bullying. In fact if you are repeatedly
trying to complain about something that has already been addressed, or
cannot be changed, or is outside of the scope of a conversation, then
yeah I would agree that is whining. But again, whining is not a
technical term, so I agree Eli took some liberty with that tact. Again
I don't agree with that approach. But again, that's not bullying in my
view.
I'm sorry that this ordeal has caused you distress, to say the least.
However, this community doesn't exist to cater to people's feelings.
We should be considerate of feelings insofar as it helps us all get
along and be more productive, but there will always be times when the
people in charge here will want to do things in a way that some users
disagree with. Sometimes that gets communicated in a way that rubs
people the wrong way and causes some hurt feelings. That's not ideal
but it's not uncommon that after a user hears an explanation they
don't agree with that they start to argue endlessly. I'd rather Eli's
time, and all of the other TU's time, be spent on doing what they are
best at: maintaining Arch. If that means that they spend a little less
time being exceptionally thoughtful about other people's feelings who
are repeatedly trying to argue with him, then I am personally OK with
that.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:54 AM Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov

Post by Baptiste Jonglez
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.

Hi Baptiste.
I read your email, and I do agree with your picture in general. I don't
intend to "sweep anything under the rug" but rather keep two things
1. A TU application
2. A discussion about the way some members of our community approach
their peers.*
I personally want to keep both conversations separate, mostly because I
think the latter could be better handled internally.
Thanks,
-Santiago.
* I don't say names here because I'm sure this is not the
only instance of this happening.

[Daniel Capella via aur-general]

*b. *to distort or twist the sense or intention of: the reporters did

violence to my speech.

Violent speech, at least of late, is more defined as inciting hate crimes
and actual violence. Perhaps we should use "cruel" here.

In fact if you are repeatedly trying to complain about something that has

already been addressed, or cannot be changed, or is outside of the scope of
a conversation, then yeah I would agree that is whining.

repeatedly trying to argue with him

repeatedly trying to defend himself and resolve the situation*

Frankly reputation and standing do matter here. I have seen Eli be very

curt with people in the past and I am not surprised that people have taken
offense. But I haven't ever seen Eli do this without some justification,

, then I am personally OK with that

As a professional environment, this is definitively not okay. Also see our
CoC.

bully -* 1. * A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially

to smaller or weaker people.

[Daniel Capella via aur-general]

hate crimes and physical violence*

Post by Daniel Capella via aur-general

*b. *to distort or twist the sense or intention of: the reporters did

violence to my speech.
Violent speech, at least of late, is more defined as inciting hate crimes
and actual violence. Perhaps we should use "cruel" here.

In fact if you are repeatedly trying to complain about something that

has already been addressed, or cannot be changed, or is outside of the
scope of a conversation, then yeah I would agree that is whining.

repeatedly trying to argue with him

repeatedly trying to defend himself and resolve the situation*

Frankly reputation and standing do matter here. I have seen Eli be very

curt with people in the past and I am not surprised that people have taken
offense. But I haven't ever seen Eli do this without some justification,

, then I am personally OK with that

As a professional environment, this is definitively not okay. Also see our
CoC.

bully -* 1. * A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing,

especially to smaller or weaker people.
--
Best,
polyzen

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?

Post by Daniel Capella via aur-general
hate crimes and physical violence*

Post by Daniel Capella via aur-general

*b. *to distort or twist the sense or intention of: the reporters did

violence to my speech.
Violent speech, at least of late, is more defined as inciting hate crimes
and actual violence. Perhaps we should use "cruel" here.

In fact if you are repeatedly trying to complain about something that

has already been addressed, or cannot be changed, or is outside of the
scope of a conversation, then yeah I would agree that is whining.

repeatedly trying to argue with him

repeatedly trying to defend himself and resolve the situation*

Frankly reputation and standing do matter here. I have seen Eli be very

curt with people in the past and I am not surprised that people have taken
offense. But I haven't ever seen Eli do this without some justification,

, then I am personally OK with that

As a professional environment, this is definitively not okay. Also see
our CoC.

bully -* 1. * A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing,

especially to smaller or weaker people.
--
Best,
polyzen

--
Best,
polyzen

[Daniel Capella via aur-general]

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?
It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in this
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and "Be
responsible".
Baptiste

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

The only rule there that strikes me as potentially having been violated is
"respect other users". But I think that cuts both ways in this case to be
perfectly honest. It could be argued that Konstantin did not respect the
existing TUs initial responses to his questions. But that's debatable.

The main point that I am interested in making is that this initial claim of
bullying and violent communication was overblown and inaccurate.

Post by Daniel M. Capella via aur-general

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?
It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in this
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and

"Be

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
responsible".
Baptiste

--
Best,
polyzen

[Connor Behan via aur-general]

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM Adam Levy

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?
It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in this
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and "Be responsible".

--
Best,
polyzen

The only rule there that strikes me as potentially having been violated is
"respect other users". But I think that cuts both ways in this case to be
perfectly honest. It could be argued that Konstantin did not respect the
existing TUs initial responses to his questions. But that's debatable.
The main point that I am interested in making is that this initial claim of
bullying and violent communication was overblown and inaccurate.

Hot-button words like "bullying" and "violence" are being used as a
rhetorical crutch.

However, I think the initial accusation of "whining" and telling
"bald-faced lies" was also inappropriate. An average AUR packager might
not realize that TUs routinely take over packages made by others and
move them to [community]. Claiming that a package "is broken" instead of
"causes orphan dependencies" also sounds like an honest mistake. And I
can't blame a user for not knowing enough about the bug wrangler's
workflow to tell which mailing list actions will make a difference.

In theory, this can be resolved with an RTFM. But when this realization
means that one will have to completely change his approach to developing
and packaging software for a larger community, some frustration is
understandable.

[Adam Levy via aur-general]

I think that is the most fair assessment of the situation that I have read
today.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 1:48 PM Connor Behan via aur-general <

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM Adam Levy

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
Being curt and direct is against the code of conduct?
It seems to me that these three rules in particular are relevant in

this

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
case and were not respected: "Respect other users", "Do not flame" and

"Be responsible".

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general

--
Best,
polyzen

The only rule there that strikes me as potentially having been violated

is

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
"respect other users". But I think that cuts both ways in this case to be
perfectly honest. It could be argued that Konstantin did not respect the
existing TUs initial responses to his questions. But that's debatable.
The main point that I am interested in making is that this initial claim

of

Post by Adam Levy via aur-general
bullying and violent communication was overblown and inaccurate.

Hot-button words like "bullying" and "violence" are being used as a
rhetorical crutch.
However, I think the initial accusation of "whining" and telling
"bald-faced lies" was also inappropriate. An average AUR packager might
not realize that TUs routinely take over packages made by others and
move them to [community]. Claiming that a package "is broken" instead of
"causes orphan dependencies" also sounds like an honest mistake. And I
can't blame a user for not knowing enough about the bug wrangler's
workflow to tell which mailing list actions will make a difference.
In theory, this can be resolved with an RTFM. But when this realization
means that one will have to completely change his approach to developing
and packaging software for a larger community, some frustration is
understandable.

[Ralf Mardorf]

Hi,

I read all related mails, but neither replied to the mailing list, nor
off-list until now. Now I'll add a single comment.

The TU writing this reply

https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-October/034408.html

is malignant manipulative. Instead of assuming good faith, he opens
with smear, "s/respectfully/passive-aggressively/".

Perhaps the one who wrote the application is mistaken regarding some
things. If so, it's no reason to make mountains out of molehills, but
this TU does.

Claims such as "Most of those people" followed by a sniffy comment is
agitation.

This TU shouts. Shouting is against all mailing list netiquettes.

It ends with a melodramatic closing...

"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."

...containing "generosity":

"Other TUs can make their own decisions of course."

This is a pattern, it isn't the first time he behaves in this way.
Regarding the disputes we had during the migration to systemd, the
mailing lists were moderated for less than the trolling we experienced
during the application thread by this TU.

Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

Regards,
Ralf

[Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general]

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

This thread has lived much longer than it's purpose. Let's stop this right now.

I'm placing this list into emergency moderation if this continues. I'm confident
all the parties understood what happened by now and how to avoid this in the future.

Thanks to all,
Giancarlo Razzolini

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

This thread has lived much longer than it's purpose. Let's stop this right now.
I'm placing this list into emergency moderation if this continues. I'm confident
all the parties understood what happened by now and how to avoid this in the future.

It was not my intention to start a debate on whether we should call what
happened "bullying" or "violent". Let's call that "problematic behaviour"
if that is easier. Given that several people (including TUs) expressed
that it was inappropriate, the problem is real -- and recurring.

My intention was to expose the problem and start discussing ways to ensure
that it will not happen again. If the matter is to be "handled
internally" and it is handled successfully, then both goals are fulfilled
and the subject is closed for me.

Anyway, I'm off for vacations so I won't monitor the list until next week.

Baptiste

[Daniel Capella via aur-general]

17:16 <dmc> grazzolini, but we're finally getting somewhere :\
17:37 <dmc> grazzolini, the reason it continues is because they're an
underlying problem we're trying to solve
17:37 <dmc> that's long overdue
17:38 <dmc> there's*
17:38 <dmc> I'm afraid this is just a temporary band-aid
17:39 <dmc> eg. I just rejoined #archlinux-offtopic after months of leaving
FOR THIS EXACT REASON
17:39 <dmc> then "sangy | Foxboron: don't try to downplay toxic behavior
from dmc"
17:40 <dmc> I understand wanting to get the thread behind us because of how
bad it looks, but .. it is what it is
17:40 <Foxboron> dmc: Yo, it was an attempt at a poor joke
17:41 <dmc> it was a direct jab
17:41 <sangy> it is not a joke
17:41 <Foxboron> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
17:41 <dmc> we're literally going on about professionalism
17:41 * Foxboron finds the door
17:41 <dmc> see?
17:41 <sangy> do you not think your attitude is toxic?
17:42 <dmc> why should I continue with you?
17:42 <sangy> the first think I told you was "I'm disapointed that you're
not trying to help me find a solution and just fanned the flames"
17:42 <sangy> the first thing you said was 'k'
17:42 <sangy> there you go
17:43 <dmc> grazzolini, the thread isn't trolling. if people want their
voices to be heard, to speak out against bullying.. you shouldn't moderate
that
17:45 <dmc> dmc | sangy, honestly I don't know if you actually care or just
are putting on a show
17:45 <coderobe> could you not
17:45 <coderobe> this is still -testing, and that argument is incredibly
unproductive
17:46 <dmc> because you asked nicely
17:47 <jasonwryan> this is my fault: I worng windowed my original comment
17:47 <jasonwryan> sorry: this discussion does /not/ belong here
17:48 <Foxboron> That was my assumption :p
17:48 <dmc> of course not

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:48 PM Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general <

Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

This thread has lived much longer than it's purpose. Let's stop this right now.
I'm placing this list into emergency moderation if this continues. I'm confident
all the parties understood what happened by now and how to avoid this in the future.
Thanks to all,
Giancarlo Razzolini

[Daniel Capella via aur-general]

SORRY ABOUT THAT. I meant to send that directly to Giancarlo.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:48 PM Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general <

Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

This thread has lived much longer than it's purpose. Let's stop this right now.
I'm placing this list into emergency moderation if this continues. I'm confident
all the parties understood what happened by now and how to avoid this in the future.
Thanks to all,
Giancarlo Razzolini

[Markus Schaaf via aur-general]

Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general

Post by Ralf Mardorf
Apparently this TU has got special rights. That he could behave like
this again and again does strengthen him to continue doing it.

This thread has lived much longer than it's purpose. Let's stop this right now.
I'm placing this list into emergency moderation if this continues.

I don't want to impute bad intentions to you, but this behavioural
pattern might be a root of the problem. This isn't a technical
discussion. It's about social interactions and emotions. You can't just
weigh facts and find /the/ truth. It's widely believed that the best we
have come up with, to reach consensus in large communities, is voting.
An equivalent on a mailing list would be to show support through
iterating a position in one's own words. What you have written above is
like trying to cut off a protest march on the grounds that the first 20
protesters already made their point clear, so there would be no reason
for the next 2000 to reiterate it again.

This thread might make some people feel uncomfortable. But rightly so.
This is not only about some TUs employing a harsh and repellent style of
communication. This is also about the community of TUs letting this
happen for years.

Post by Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general
I'm confident all the parties understood what happened by now and how
to avoid this in the future.

I don't. What makes you so confident? I do believe in man's ability to
change. But this often needs a bit of pressure.

(Don't forget that moderation means to arbitrate, not to censor.)

Best regards

[Giancarlo Razzolini via aur-general]

Post by Markus Schaaf via aur-general
I don't want to impute bad intentions to you, but this behavioural
pattern might be a root of the problem. This isn't a technical
discussion. It's about social interactions and emotions. You can't just
weigh facts and find /the/ truth. It's widely believed that the best we
have come up with, to reach consensus in large communities, is voting.
An equivalent on a mailing list would be to show support through
iterating a position in one's own words. What you have written above is
like trying to cut off a protest march on the grounds that the first 20
protesters already made their point clear, so there would be no reason
for the next 2000 to reiterate it again.

This is a mail list with a specific purpose. I don't think equating this with
a protest is accurate.

Post by Markus Schaaf via aur-general
This thread might make some people feel uncomfortable. But rightly so.
This is not only about some TUs employing a harsh and repellent style of
communication. This is also about the community of TUs letting this
happen for years.

I'm not uncomfortable with this *thread*. But there was no progress in the
discussion. Only áž¿ore piling on and ranting.

Post by Markus Schaaf via aur-general
I don't. What makes you so confident? I do believe in man's ability to
change. But this often needs a bit of pressure.

What was happening on this thread was not pressure, was ranting and rumbling.
And public ranting and rumbling achieves no goal, at all. Except more ranting
and rumbling. I'm confident for reasons that do not need to be exposed on the
list.

Post by Markus Schaaf via aur-general
(Don't forget that moderation means to arbitrate, not to censor.)

The list is now in emergency moderation.

Regard,
Giancarlo Razzolini

[Lukas Fleischer via aur-general]

Dear community,

I am writing on behalf of the Arch Linux team.

Despite the initial radio silence, we have been talking about this
thread internally and we are still discussing the consequences.

We apologize for any emails and actions from our team which may have
been inappropriate or disrespectful. We are also sorry for not stepping
in publicly earlier but we tried to avoid making a drama out of this
with too many people joining in.

Moderation is off again, however, as Giancarlo mentioned, we do not
think any further comments on people's behavior on this list add any
value and we kindly ask you to focus your efforts on other stuff. We
will work it out internally. People make mistakes. We learn from it, try
to improve and move on.

Best regards,
Lukas

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.
o python-awkward
o libafterimage
o xxhash
o unuran
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
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&id=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 duplicate of python-awkward in [community], as you very
well know since you submitted a pretty rapid bug report asking why the
package in [community] does not include some optdepends of the package.

You've meanwhile updated it to a version that currently out of date and
lagging behind the version in [community], something that is only
possible because the AUR blacklist bans packages already in the official
repos, but not packages that provide the exact same software under a
different name. You apparently had enough time to do so, but not enough
time to update the two packages in the AUR which depend on
python-awkward-array to depend on python-awkward instead -- nor to even
add provides/conflicts on your AUR duplicate since they install the same
files.

(The optdepends are still there, even though the bug tracker resolution
was that they shouldn't be, and aren't in the official community
repository.)

...

I'm afraid I got too discouraged by this immediate result, and did not
end up looking at any of your other packages.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Hi Eli,

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.
o python-awkward
o libafterimage
o xxhash
o unuran
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
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&id=59bfa242560e113a39bd630d20d21eee45954dd7
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 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.

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`). 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.

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.

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.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
...
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 duplicate of python-awkward in [community], as you very
well know since you submitted a pretty rapid bug report asking why the
package in [community] does not include some optdepends of the package.
You've meanwhile updated it to a version that currently out of date and
lagging behind the version in [community], something that is only
possible because the AUR blacklist bans packages already in the official
repos, but not packages that provide the exact same software under a
different name. You apparently had enough time to do so, but not enough
time to update the two packages in the AUR which depend on
python-awkward-array to depend on python-awkward instead -- nor to even
add provides/conflicts on your AUR duplicate since they install the same
files.
(The optdepends are still there, even though the bug tracker resolution
was that they shouldn't be, and aren't in the official community
repository.)
...
I'm afraid I got too discouraged by this immediate result, and did not
end up looking at any of your other packages.

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. In any case, I would appreciate the feedback whatever it is.

Regards,

Konstantin

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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...

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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.

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.

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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 problem I see is in your mindset -- I don't think you approach
packaging with due respect for quality.

[Eli Schwartz via aur-general]

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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&status[]=

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].

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.
o python-awkward
o libafterimage
o xxhash
o unuran
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
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&id=59bfa242560e113a39bd630d20d21eee45954dd7
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.

Post by Eli Schwartz via aur-general
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 duplicate of python-awkward in [community], as you very
well know since you submitted a pretty rapid bug report asking why the
package in [community] does not include some optdepends of the package.
You've meanwhile updated it to a version that currently out of date and
lagging behind the version in [community], something that is only
possible because the AUR blacklist bans packages already in the official
repos, but not packages that provide the exact same software under a
different name. You apparently had enough time to do so, but not enough
time to update the two packages in the AUR which depend on
python-awkward-array to depend on python-awkward instead -- nor to even
add provides/conflicts on your AUR duplicate since they install the same
files.
(The optdepends are still there, even though the bug tracker resolution
was that they shouldn't be, and aren't in the official community
repository.)
...
I'm afraid I got too discouraged by this immediate result, and did not
end up looking at any of your other packages.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

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.

[Konstantin Gizdov]

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
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.

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Hello,
I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.

The discussion period is over, the vote is now open:

https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=110

Please cast your ballot until next Monday!

Baptiste

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Post by Baptiste Jonglez

Post by Konstantin Gizdov
Hello,
I am Konstantin Gizdov [1] [2],
I would like to apply to be a Trusted User under Baptiste Jonglez's
sponsorship.

https://aur.archlinux.org/tu/?id=110
Please cast your ballot until next Monday!

The vote is over and the result is positive, congratulations Konstantin!

I have upgraded your AUR account to TU status, please read this page
carefully and proceed with the TODO list:

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#TODO_list_for_new_Trusted_Users

I am sure you will make a good addition to the team and that you deserve
the trust we (as a group) place in you.

Baptiste