Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Had this been handled privately, as I believe it should have been, that would simply have been needed be between the Dev and the Extras mods.

It doesn't require public humiliation.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Agreed, but by the same token: this is often difficult if not impossible to extract when the offender is encircled by an enraged mob with virtual torches and pitchforks. That tends to put people (any of us) on the defensive. Not productive at all.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

The idea of this sort of thing being dealt with in private makes me a little queasy; I'm not sure how you avoid things getting ugly (though I suspect that having a clear procedure to follow would actually help), but there does need to be transparency.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I think it should and could have been a mix: initially approach the developer in private, then once understanding (or an impasse) has been reached, bring the issue into the open.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I've always been a proponent of the old adage:

Even in the military.. I used to abhor what they called "Open Mast".

Let's line up the entire command to watch the CO scream at someone. I'm sorry.. we're not 10 anymore. We don't need to be "scared" into doing the "right" thing.

At least.. most of us shouldn't have to be.

As far as transparency.. to an extent. That's why I said that I wouldn't have been against X-Fade or whoever making an announcement and having it locked simply saying:

Or something similar. That's it.... the users can see why their apps magically vanished from HAM - and the dev gets dealt with on the side.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

The thing is, most of us don't. I wouldn't expect mass public shamings becoming a routine feature of the community.

I think that statement is too incomplete - it makes it sound like an accident, which it wasn't. I do think it's important to have the facts on the record so that people can make up their own minds about them. A number of people have said that they'd be personally unwilling to trust someone that had done this sort of thing again, even if the project as a whole was prepared to give second chances. I think they should have the facts necessary to be able to make that sort of decision.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Agreed. I don't see anyone arguing against that.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

A further clarification:

If it's determined however that the dev was being intentionally malicious... ala sticking the infamous RM joke into postrm.. thereby laughing at anyone that decides they don't like their app.. Or if someone scans source code of an app in Extras and see's code that is capturing and sending passwords, for example.. and the Dev rushed them to Extras due to a different exploit (we're moving forward, remember?)

That would require immediate banning, notice to the Dev their privs are revoked.. and a more detailed announcement here at what exactly the app did - and if anyone has or ever had installed it they likely need to either:
A) modify their postrm real quick
or B) change all their passwords

Etc. Those affect the users directly in a malicious and harmful way.. and people should be warned.

A lot of a punishment has to do with the intention of the dev. If they circumvented some rules out of laziness or self-gain that's one thing. If they did it to create a mass-virus.. that's different.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I did say "or similar" ;). If it's decided that more detail is needed for the announcement that's fine.

What we need at this point though, is a committee of some sorts that gather all of these ideas together - and make a wiki or rule article or something that clearly defines:

If a bug in extras is found, report it <here>, if someone notices an App that does not belong in Extras.. report that <here>..

And a clear indication of punishment with examples of the crime it applies to (*not* real life examples.. please god don't somebody go stick SIO2 into a wiki article..).

Making stuff up as we go isn't going to work.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I love it when a noisy thread matures and turns productive. ;)

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I always preferred

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Hah.. haven't heard that one. We're going to have to agree to disagree there then.. hopefully at some point this comes to a vote about how to handle these things and we'll see which of our sides is more advocated.

Personally, I do love transparency. I really do... but what I don't love is throwing people to the wolves. That doesn't sit well with me.. which unfortunately means we can't have 100% transparency. Some things are best handled on their own.. IMHO.

To quote a fun movie:

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Maybe I can offer something to this thread, simply and without any large scale thinking or weighed morals.


Hi, I'm an end user with an N900. I have disposable income and would like to purchase your game when it is completed. I want it to work well without bugs, so I can show it to my girlfriend, and possibly entertain her while we're riding the metro or something.

I don't want to be scammed, so I would prefer to use Paypal or a service that I know, I would consider OVI as an acceptable payment system, just because it seems to be backed by Nokia.

I don't like it when my demo games open up payment web pages, if I like it, I will buy it.

I do want to buy something from an N900 store, because I really like the N900 and want it to do well.

Thank you.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Heh. There's certainly something to that, but there is the counterexample that open transparent communities do actually manage to generate things like Linux distributions. I tend to find that when you create an atmosphere in which people are treated like responsible grown-ups, and everyone simply expects everyone else to act that way, most people do.

That's not to say that there aren't messy, and even painful, disputes on occasion, but overall it works.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Open discussions are (almost) always good, when everyone involved brings maturity and are accountable to their actions and their messages.

Unfortunately, as can be seen in many threads here, that's not always the case. Such is the achilles heel of having 'serious' discussion in an open forum like this.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Well...

I need an example of a successful Linux Distribution that does not have a central group of individuals primarily responsible for it's development.

Sure.. quite of a few of them take input from the community on direction.. but I don't think there's any where absolutely every change is voted on by every member of the community before implementation...

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

yes, why didn't you spot the abuse first, contact necessary persons and handle this with closed doors? or even better: predict such an abuse and prevent it technically.

it is so easy to say idealistic things afterwards ... it has already happened so absolutely no need to talk in past form. what about lines like "in future there should ...."?
imo it is dozen times stupider to blame peoples initial reactions afterwards than expressing such.

this was the first time. bratag misses the point by miles. we have open ecosystem so we need the trust in order to make things run fluently. sio2interactive was the first one who did something that totally took the trust away with communitys repos. and I got the image that the guy said "sorry, but I'd still do it agan because blahblah". that is something I find unacceptable and haven't changed my harsh opinion even after serious thinking.

everyone should have done better. this applies to everyone in this thread. i suggest we spend rest of the thread stoning the people who stick in the past instead of discussing about improvements.



should there be a bolded point in garage when creating new account? something like "one account per one real person (no one per company etc). creating multiple accounts will lead to removing of all accounts and software etc accordingly plus permanent ban for life"

that would make the risk so big that reward from taking the risk would need to be huge, much more than getting one piece of software to extras.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Have you been reading any of my responses??? That is exactly what I have been doing.

Please look specifically at what I responded to.. he was saying he wanted a public apology due to broken trust. I am saying it would be unnecessary if it's handled privately. Which implies precisely that I am recommending for the future that be how this is done.

Little harsh. However some form of notice about "One account per person" or something would be a good idea.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

What a bunch of witch hunters.

He did the wrong doing, he then admitted that he was wrong with some very valid reasons which should be addressed so it doesn't happen again in the future, and then apologised, then he was willing to support this community with more games. He has been already burnt by you all more than enough.

But nooooooo.

Is this how a justice system works these days?

Kill first, forgive later?

I hate people who publicly humiliating and judging others as if they've never done something wrong in their lives. It's EASY to say bad things to someone else who you know you will never meet personally. I thought maemo.org community was a bit more grown up than this. Guess it's not.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Welcome to 5 or so pages ago Jakiman.. the focus now is what to do in the future.. not what's been already done.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Sorry. :p I just woke up (7am here in Oz) and read the first 20 pages or so and got disgusted at what I read so I just posted. I can only assume the damage has already been done.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

why are you speculating about the past then? that is something I dont get. it is easy to stick with the past -tone (as witnessed by jakiman imo).


where are your arguments? I think I argumented my version pretty well. I see zero valid counter-arguments here. "Little harsh" isn't one. yes this thread is more than little harsh, but with those words this thread probably would never appeared here anyway. that harshness is called risk&reward. when risk is high enough, there is no need for monitoring even because even with near zero probability the risk is unbearable and reward is really small anyway.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

There were valid counterarguments ossipena, particularly the matter of your suggestion being disproportionate to the crime.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Yay Defensive...

Anyway.

I was saying it's harsh telling people that if create a duplicate account they'll get permanently banned for all eternity with no hope of recovery.

So, assume for a minute I create an account with an email and never get activation or what have you.. either they or my email system is FUBAR'd at that time, and after a day or two I think maybe something is broke and so I create another one. I just created a duplicate.. should I get run out of the community before I even start?

Simply create a rule that says not to create duplicate accounts. That's all that's needed... punishment and/or criteria for what to do when people break the rules would be handled in a separate area, IMHO.

ETA: Plus what Tex said... Punishment <> Crime.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

i can't draw a line from "a little harsh" to that even how hard I try. what others were there then?

lets argument my solution further

1. why would one ever need two accounts?
2. how would punishment influence the will to create two accounts? (spoiler: the harder the punishment, ....)
3. who defines the proportions?
3.1 must the general tmo guidelines about multiaccount punishments be followed? really? those are for chitchatting, not software QA.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

you don't know how to send an email?

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

*sigh*

I can see this isn't going to get anywhere....

Please.. continue telling people they should be de-handed for swiping some bubble gum from a corner market.. I won't stop you.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I thought it would come to that by your original replies..... so I wont bother anymore because this is frustrating when you only keep dodging.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

There must be some community discussion in every case. I think we can agree that:

Developer A bypasses the QA system to make money faster is bad.
Developer B bypasses the QA system to steal passwords is much worse.
Developer C bypasses the QA system to brick devices is even worse.

Do they all get the same announcement "Developer bypassed the QA system and software has been removed."?

Or do Developers B and C get a more detailed announcement? So that the community is aware they were acting in a very anti-social manner?

I think, obviously B and C get a more detailed announcement. But where do we draw the line? We need the actions and consequences spelled out. But once you do that, it is easy to infer what the offense was based on the announcement. At that point you may as well detail it in the announcement to prevent speculation. And that brings us right back to this thread.

I'm not in favor of a public stoning, but the public must be aware of what is going on. If it is decided to punish developers behind closed doors, Extras (for me) will lose some of its' credibility as a "safe" repository.

Because unless I am part of a select group, I won't know if a developer/application has been reprimanded before and may fall victim to someone on their 2nd or 3rd .... transgression. If I know a particular developer has had issues in the past I may skip their applications or install and carefully evaluate them. But that is my choice, without that knowledge, my choice has been taken from me.

Yes, I take a chance installing anything from extras, or the other repositories, but again it is my INFORMED choice.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Well, I think the obvious one is Debian. There are certainly people in leadership positions, but they're put there by the wider Debian community, and are accountable to that community. It's not always pretty - Debian mailing list flamewars are legendary - but it produces a top quality distribution, and one we're all running a derivative of.


That's a different thing though; decisions are delegated to various people, you don't hold a vote in advance, but any decision that a Debian leader takes is subject to being overturned by the community with a General Resolution if it's felt to be necessary. In practice, that doesn't happen very much, but it couldn't happen at all if the process weren't public because you can't object to something if you can't see it happening.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I haven't said anything against this. The announcement that the apps were removed and why is informing the community.

If the developer decides to come public and want an appeal from the community so be it.. or if someone truly cares enough they'll open a thread in appeal for the dev themselves.

The default action should not be to call someone out on a public forum. Only if an agreed resolution cannot be determined should it get to something like this.

We delegate that authority to make decisions for us to people we trust and we need to let them do their jobs.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

The punishment should never occur behind closed doors.

The initial approach, in some cases, should IMO.

EDIT:

open != mob rule

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I'm confused here. Can you give me an example? How can the Extras mods initiate something behind closed doors and then come here for punishment without it resulting in mobs?

So if there's an App in Extras that bricks devices.. it should be left until the community can come to a consensus for fear of implementing punishment prior to properly giving people a vote? (sorry for the extreme, I'm just confused what you seem to be considering punishment.)

(or do you just mean the punishment announced?)

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I think even if the initial approach could take place quietly I'm not sure why the announcement of the reason for removing the apps would be significantly less likely to upset people than the initial announcement in this thread.

If you're completely honest with people about who did what, and people don't like what was done, they're still going to be pissed off. I'm not sure you avoid the anger, or just delay it. Indeed, you could even make it worse if the announcement is at all delayed and people feel like they've been kept in the dark about a serious problem.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

your last question answers itself. ;)

I see resolution = punishment here.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Ok.. thanked both posts for agreement. Just had a slight synapse failure for a second.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

*sigh*

- approach silently
- announce process start publicly
- announce resolution publicly
- put away torches and pitchforks and move on

EDIT: so many unsafe assumptions being made about points presented here... can we just stop that?

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

But how long will we wait for the resolution? If a program is found that bricks devices, an announcement should be made immediately (and probably stickied), with a resolution added later.

I'm not as concerned with the resolution as I am passing along pertinent information in a timely manner.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

The announcement should come pretty much immediately.. that's why I was generic in mine. It allows the "punishment" to be announced while still allotting the Mods/Admins to PM and discuss it with the dev.

If it turns out the dev was malicious, a modified announcement could be made that he/she's been banned permanently.

As far as the mob thing... once it's done it's done.. especially if the thread is locked. Unless someone really cares that much they won't bother making a new post just to scream because their favorite app is gone I don't think that'll be all that common.

Then again.. I'm sure we'll see the "WTF admins tramplin mah rights!" cropping up. But any time you have jobs/positions in any form you'll get those.

If we have a post/sticky/wiki/document that explains explicitly what happens when/if a Dev (or anybody) breaks or abuses the extras repo's.. there isn't much to argue about. The announcement contains a link directly to whatever portion of that guidance is applicable. That way it's not just a bunch of people screaming "BURN HIM", "NOOO WE LOVE HIM".. etc.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

In that case, what is the channel to be used by a person who notices this kind of abuse? Is leaving a comment at maemo.org > packages > Fremantle Extras-testing free armel enough. There seems to be comment threads there with no activity within the last few months.

It seems like OP joined here relatively recently, as have I. At least my initial response would have been similar: I would have posted about it on this forum. maemo.wiki's front page or FAQ doesn't have answer on how to handle situation like this. Quickly searching the maemo.org site doesn't reveal any help on how to deal situation like this.

It's one thing to say this should be approached silently, and other thing to clearly provide information to end users how the silent approach should be handled.