> I was expecting an e-mail such as the one sent by Carsten Haitzler, not the > one sent by Mr. Steel. > When we are too strict about rules - without stating the reasons behind those > rules, we will drive good people away. Mr. Steel didn't bother to search > about the things I did or who I was nor did he wanted anything to know about > myself or why I wanted to join Archlinux, his e-mail was basically a > box-ticking-procedure-checking. > That's not just how people should behave within communities, as different > people behave differently and it's way more important to have an human-factor > when dealing with people.
Hi Tomaz, Let me start by saying I see your passion for it and understand your point of view. I believe this is my first time ever replying to this mailing list, by the way. I have read many threads of people discussing TU Applications. I felt the need to reply because I recently argued with someone about similar issues to this and did so starting from a similar point of view as you I believe, where I was against the seemingly corporate-like checklists/procedures. The person knew me and I felt insulted that they were making me go through with something that seemingly implied that I was lying. I have actually changed my point of view on this though after discussing it with coworkers several times. The real importance of following checklists/procedures like this, as I was convinced to realize, is that they force fairness and transparency. It prevents nepotism, or even possibly people being deceived and getting someone they thought was a friend online past the normal procedures, and having them turn out to be malicious. It is not accusing you or anyone of it, but it is to make things fair. I think that is important in a community like this. Treat people fairly. This way we don't have to try to guess who has malicious intent and treat them differently than someone else 1 person thought they knew. All community members, on a side note, although I haven't read much into it, I think it is great to see the role is now "package maintainer". I have said to myself after reading many of these applications and seeing the current TUs interview the person applying mostly about their technical ability, that all of these technical questions are not really confirming the part I worry more about with the AUR, and what is in the name of a "TU", _TRUST_. A person with malicious intent, could, and most likely would be, technically capable. They could easily pass that part of it with minimal effort. Very few of these applications seem to have a way to actually confirm that the person applying is TRUSTED. Now, I know everywhere it says the AUR is not to be trusted, and we must confirm all PKGBUILDs during build, but let's be real, with git packages and sources being pulled from many unheard of remote websites, that can be tough. I do review almost every PKGBUILD I use from the AUR, but I often wonder about the git url it is pulling from, and only sometimes do I go there and take a quick look at it. This can be a tough balance between confirming trust, and keeping people's privacy though. I am not sure though if more investigation is done behind closed doors to confirm those things but keep people's private information, well, private. Sorry to go off on a bit of a rant there on the side note. I hope my formatting was satisfactory for everyone (plain text and bottom-replying, right? haha.). I see there have also been a couple emails pop up since I typed this up. Sorry if this has now become repetitive, out of place, or further derailed the conversation on the actual application process. Kind regards, Dan
