Hey Vitalii, I understand different cultures or customs approach these things differently, however I am culturally British, and I found your opening language in your package comments needlessly combative. I appreciate and accept your apology, however I still contest this deletion request, this is not the way to suggest improvement or fixes to problems that may exist in the packages. I appreciate you have now added more constructive comments elsewhere, which I will follow up on shortly. Lastly, I am not opposed to deleting genuinely useless packages if they were not useful to me, and I did not expect them to be reasonably useful to others.
Thanks,
Dr. GO
For genuine in-good-faith clarity, the offending / inflammatory statements are:
- "What is the point of this package?" is very pejorative, and is the opening
sentence of which you wrote in our first contact, "What drove you to make this
package if it already exists?" could have been more conducive to productive
discussion as it is less accusatory.
- "If the package is any different (it's not)" for a native English speaker
portrays a certain level of disregard / disrespect. Alternatively, you could
have said, "I do not believe adding kubectl to be necessary as X."
- or describing aspects of what I have made or do as "pointless" which could
have arbitrarily been chosen differently but in conjunction with the rest I
likely took in bad faith. A term like "fruitless" or "unnecessary" may have
been preferable, but this one is largely context driven.
Along with the sudden, spurious escalation of these deletion requests, I found
the sum total of your actions to be needlessly combative / inflammatory. I hope
that helps brings some clarity to my perspective, so you do not feel it is a
random or unreasonable response.
On Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 9:45 PM, Vitalii Kuzhdin
<vitaliikuzh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The reason I submitted multiple requests was to have unique PRQs (see the
> subject of the automated email) assigned to each, so that there is a
> precedent for a Package Maintainer action. Please don't consider it as spam;
> I wasn't trying to flood your inbox.
>
> I'll leave a few more of my points in the comments, though obviously, the
> decision will be made by a Package Maintainer. However, the ultimate reason
> why I'm writing this email here is to address the 'inflammatory language' you
> mentioned. I honestly do not see where I have used such language, and you can
> be sure I didn't mean it even if there was indeed something harsh.
> Re-reading, I can only see myself addressing each point that you made and
> even giving you advice on one. Obviously, I am not a professional to be
> teaching others, but I also had the same issues with managing architectures
> in my first package, so I thought I'd leave a link to the wiki to help you.
>
> Again, I'm sorry that I made you feel this way. I hope this email has cleared
> things up and we can move forward constructively.
>
> Vitalii
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 10:24 PM GeorgeRaven <georgeravencommun...@pm.me>
> wrote:
>
> > Hey,
> >
> > This user has spuriously opened a deletion request for this and a few other
> > multi-arch packages I manage for Kubernetes, namely:
> >
> > - kubectl-bin
> > - kubeadm-bin
> > - kubelet-bin
> > - cni-plugins-bin
> >
> > While they do not see the value in multi-arch packages which extend beyond
> > upstream support, I do not believe this precludes the packages' existence
> > to support more architectures.
> >
> > As I have stated to them in other messages, if they have a particular issue
> > with the package not working for them on other architectures they should
> > instead inform me to remedy the issue, rather than spurious deletion
> > requests, and inflammatory language.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Dr. GO
> >
> > PS: I have replied to each deletion request to ensure they are in the chain
> > for each request, so apologies for the repetition of the message if you
> > happen to read all back to back.
> >
> > On Monday, February 10th, 2025 at 8:47 PM, not...@aur.archlinux.org
> > <not...@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > vitaliikuzhdin [1] filed a deletion request for kubectl-bin [2]:
> > >
> > > Already exists in the official repositories.
> > >
> > > [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/vitaliikuzhdin/
> > > [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/kubectl-bin/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
