On 9/5/24 3:28 AM, Polarian wrote:
Hello,
Hello,
I don't think it was ever mentioned that such a paste service offered by Arch Linux would become *the official one* and that its usage would be enforced in any way when requesting support or something (in opposition to other similar services). I'm not sure where that comes from?It was an implication based on the fact the email was sent from a staff members email address, which I believe is a fair implication to make. There has been times in the past where, on the mailing list, responses from Jelle and Anthraxx have been pointed out as the "official" response. How should we differentiate between an unofficial and an official stance on something if you use your @archlinux.org email address?
For now, no stance has been taken. A suggestion has been made and people are debating & exposing concerns (whether they are from staff or not). Sorry if I'm wrong, but it feels to me that you are trying to contest a decision that hasn't even been made yet, out of assumptions.
The fact that we use our @archlinux.org email address or not is irrelevant. Actually some people from the staff don't use their al.org email address at all. That doesn't indicate anything regarding the veracity or the "officialness" of our stance.
If any final decision is made or a stance should be taken as "official", this will be made clear.
The exact sentence was (copy pasted from the author's email [1]) : "I 100% support having our own paste service that's *on a trustworthy domain like archlinux.org*". The domain (archlinux.org) is described as trustworthy, not the service itself. This is an important nuance in that context (e.g who host/manage the service and the data it collects).Apologies for the misconception.
No problem
First of all, Arch Linux and rustypaste are not corporate so there's no "corporate buddies"/shareholders in that context.Seen as you are nitpicking every word, I will quote what I stated in my previous email for clarification:Take our corporate buddies as an example on this point.In no way does this suggestion I was assuming Arch Linux or rustypaste corporate, it was an alternative point of view, an example. It appears you saw "corporate" and instantly rejected the point of view as invalid.
In my opinion, a conflict of interest would make sense if we were in a corporate environment or it was question to fund the selected project. As we're not, this notion is a bit more vague (see details in my answers below).
I personally have not been bothered by any potential "conflict of interest" in their suggestion.So, to confirm, it does not bother you if a solution is picked based on personal gain instead of it being the best solution? My point was simply, if you benefit outside of Arch Linux on a choice made, surely you should only be able to comment on the issue, and excuse yourself on the choice of solution?
What "personal gain/benefits" do you think Orhun will get from this?And what restriction do you think will be "enforced" to you as a user if Orhun's solution is hosted by Arch?
You are describing the situation as if it will be profitable primarily to Orhun and will become super restrictive for you as a user. If this is ever implemented, Arch will be offering a paste service which happens to be developed by Orhun, that's just it. You would still be able to use whatever paste service you prefer. There's no need to make the situation more complicated than it actually is.
I'm aware you said you intend no offense (and I'm not doubting that) but, frankly, implying that Orhun acted with its personal interest in mind when proposing to offer an instance of his paste service to users under the Arch infra/domain is hypothetical and disrespectful.
As you said, the debate here should be "is rustypaste a good fit for a potential paste service offered by Arch?" rather than whoever developed it or whatever hypothetical personal gain they will get from this.
"rustypaste is looking for a public instance [2], could Arch Linux host it?"Well I obviously misunderstood. Apologies yet again. But unfortunately this makes it even worse!
This sentence was a one line sum up of an entire mail [1]. Of course, there's more to it. The given example in Orhun's mail as a comparaison is https://paste.ubuntu.com/, which is made for ubuntu users, requiring a login on Ubuntu's SSO to be used.
People donate to the Arch Linux project to support Arch Linux, not third party projects developed by staff members. Surely this is betrayal to use Arch Linux funding to fund non-Arch projects?
The infrastructure hosts a bunch of "external" services, whether they are used by staff or users (Wiki, Forum, GitLab, HedgeDoc, Mail server + Mailing List manager,...). If you feel like the money you donated to Arch Linux serves as a funding for all those "third party" projects and, as such, you feel betrayed; them I'm sorry but that's not how that works.
First of all, it was never implied to give any fund to the rustypaste project.
Regardless, as a quick parenthesis, a donation is not a contract. You can't dictate how Arch will use your donation. You should only be assured that it will be used with the Arch project's interest in mind (which can imply funding a third party project, if it has any benefit to Arch). Again, this is a general statement, it isn't linked to the rustypaste subject we're currently discussing.
I would be all for it if Arch Linux was charging Orhun, in fact, it would be a great way to raise funding for Arch Linux, sell off the additional server resources. (I am assuming there is additional server resources)
Do you imply we should charge every developer of the services hosted on the Arch infra? Not sure why things should work differently for `rustypaste` than any other services we host and offer to staff and users.
Although I stated I would not bring it up, a security flaw in rustypaste could have a knock on impact to Arch Linux. Is it worth taking on more legal burden (such as GDPR), moderation duties (ensure illegal content is not being distributed through Arch Linux servers) and the additional resources which will need to be allocated on Arch's servers?
That's a legit and fair concern, which has been raised and discussed already.
To be blunt, why should Arch Linux fund it?
Again, I'm not sure what you are referring to as "fund it", but it was never implied to give any fund to the rustypaste project. Hosting an instance of a service and funding it is very different.
Its not to benefit Arch Linux users! It almost solely benefits rustypaste users, which would only really benefit the Arch Linux IRC folks (provided they pick rustypaste over the countless other pastebin solutions).
It was discussed to link such a rustypaste instance to our Arch SSO via OIDC and/or using the same mechanism as the forum where you would need to ask a pacman related question [2]. Here again, you're just making assumptions that it will only be profitable to rustypaste users whereas we are currently discussing how to implement such a solution in the Arch context in particular (thus targeting Arch users specifically).
Surely this opens a flood gate to a whole heap of potential requests for hosting for other staff members individual projects?
This is hypothetical, I don't see why this specific suggestion would open such a door.
Also, I'm still struggling to understand why it bothers you so much. As said above, there's no question of funding or conflict of interest in that context. So, as long as the service is beneficial/relevant to everyone, why do you care if it was developed by so-and-so?
Actually, if it is beneficial/relevant to everyone and it happens to be developed by one of the trusted member of the Arch staff, that's even better right?
Again, as you said yourself, the debate here should be "is rustypaste a good fit for a potential paste service offered by Arch?" rather than whoever developed it (and whatever hypothetical personal gain they will get from this).
Here again, I feel like this an important nuance to understand why the discussion is specifically about rustypaste (and not about any other similar services).I feel like you have redirected the questions away, in avoidance, by using some misconception on my part. But then again it has always felt when things are discussed on this mailing list people never really object out of fear of causing drama, which from personal experience is taken very seriously. Why bother posting if people can't freely raise concerns? I have nothing against correcting me, but it feels like you invalidated the questions instead of corrected them and answered them, which to me, feels like avoidance.
I indeed did try to correct some misconception and redirect the questions away to refocus on the actual matter/debate. It wasn't done in bad faith though, sorry if you felt the contrary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for discussing such subjects publicly and transparently so that *everyone* can express their thoughts. Yet, I felt like those assumptions/misconceptions led to off-topic questioning (at least for the time being, as no decision has been taken yet) which I didn't felt was helpful regarding the current debate.
Thanks for expressing your thoughts (sincerely). I just shared mine, nothing more :)
Take care,
[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/Y7KUOXXVVMXEAVFUPK4I5GXB6J55CIF6/ [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/archives/list/arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/5R6TXJRGFX4IXEZN2H6KAM2NMRU4DG2Z/
-- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xFDC3040B92ACA748.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
