CKAN Discussion Continutation

[politas]

Ok, I've had some sleep so now I can explain my actions. I created PR Allow foss delisting #1795 and have started behaving as though that change were accepted. As a result, I have delisted some mods on request. If there are any delisting requests that I haven't got to, I apologise for that. 

Given that ModuleManager is one of the mods I delisted, CKAN is effectively useless for most users now. Sarbian handed me the launch codes, and I fired the nuke.

So why did I do it? Mostly as a wake-up call to my fellow CKAN contributors. Insisting that CKAN is following FOSS ethos by keeping all FOSS mods available was not ultimately in the best interests of either the FOSS community or the KSP community. I have been thinking a lot about this over the last couple of days, and here's what I think is the fundamental problem: 

CKAN's policy was all about accessibility, and the rights of users. It was based on the assumption that all CKAN was doing was facilitating the installation of mods. Where it went wrong is in not taking into account the fact that in the minds of many CKAN users, CKAN also implicitly defines a support relationship, by linking to the "homepage" forum thread. We have attempted to disabuse users of that idea, but those efforts have been unsuccessful, and are likely to remain so, because people are people.

It is this expectation of support in the minds of users that has antagonised the modders, as far as I can see (combined with a perception of arrogance from CKAN team members and supporters). As such, I am going to act as though my PR #1795 has been accepted. Either we change the policy, or the CKAN team kick me out of the project.

[Jarin]

2 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

My time is more important than yours.

Yes, the time of the mod developers who contribute all the content we are discussing in this thread is indeed more important than random joe shmoe player.

[politas]

14 hours ago, ferram4 said:

And here's a nice long #ckan log to be complete.  Statement doesn't seem to have too much context, tbh, simply being at the end.

It is nice to read explicit statement of what I suspected for a long time though: the sticking point is FAR.  The entire reason is to keep RO being installable through CKAN regardless of the support issues it causes.

Edit: Actually, I think it's kinda funny that you think calling me selfish is an insult @politas.  I've always been rather transparent about the fact that I only release my mods for the sake of feedback and bug reports to make it better; I'd have thought that the selfishness would be quite clear.

Not an insult. It's a statement of fact. And it's a fact that CKAN needs to take into account. Unlike many FOSS authors, some mod authors are highly focused on the mod creation in and of itself, and users are merely a means to achieve that goal. If you think that is an reasonable attitude for you to have, why would you think me saying it is an insult? I think it's a reasonable attitude for you to have. There's nothing inherently wrong with being selfish, if you are not harming anyone in the process.

As to the point about bringing RO users into the fight, I would like to humbly apologise. I have not attempted, and am not attempting, to rouse a mob of CKAN users to fan the flames. My postings on the CKAN thread will continue to ask users to be patient while we sort out our issues.

[ferram4]

It came off as an insult given that I've always been extremely forward about my reasons for releasing and it was phrased as if I haven't been.  It comes up every time someone asks about why modders release things.  Acting as if I'm not completely honest about it is just... what?

Anyway, good on you trying to take a stand.  I don't have high hopes though.

Edited June 26, 2016 by ferram4

[politas]

18 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

It came off as an insult given that I've always been extremely forward about my reasons for releasing and it was phrased as if I haven't been.  It comes up every time someone asks about why modders release things.  Acting as if I'm not completely honest about it is just... what?

Anyway, good on you trying to take a stand.  I don't have high hopes though.

The statement was poorly worded, and I apologise.

[bos]

1 hour ago, politas said:

Ok, I've had some sleep so now I can explain my actions. I created PR Allow foss delisting #1795 and have started behaving as though that change were accepted. As a result, I have delisted some mods on request. If there are any delisting requests that I haven't got to, I apologise for that. 

Given that ModuleManager is one of the mods I delisted, CKAN is effectively useless for most users now. Sarbian handed me the launch codes, and I fired the nuke.

Okay, mods on which others are significantly dependent should be granted time in order to get a fork going under a new maintainer -- in case one of the dependent mod authors or an interested third party cares enough to take that on. In order to avoid the kind of knee-jerk unilateral nonsense illustrated here.

Edited June 26, 2016 by bos

[politas]

7 minutes ago, bos said:

Okay, well obviously mods on which others are significantly dependent should be granted time in order to get a fork going under a new maintainer.

It's not my preferred case, but once I made up my mind on the stance I was taking, I couldn't say no.

[bos]

2 minutes ago, politas said:

It's not my preferred case, but once I made up my mind on the stance I was taking, I couldn't say no.

I assume the dll autodetection and dependent mods still work as long as you go grab ModuleManager directly? This feels hastily implemented and ill-thoughtout but maybe I am wrong (don't really want to test it on my install right now).

[blu3wolf]

Should still work.

[Jarin]

I think users are smart enough to drop one single file manually into a folder while things are sorted out.

[Papa_Joe]

2 minutes ago, bos said:

I assume the dll autodetection and dependent mods still work as long as you go grab ModuleManager directly? This feels hastily implemented and ill-thoughtout but maybe I am wrong (don't really want to test it on my install right now).

I by no means mean any disrespect to anyone here, but mod installs are by nature pretty simple things.   Dependency on tools like CKAN are nice, but in reality you should know how to do it manually.  if you already do and simply like the convenience, fine, but understand that modders will generally not support you if you are using automated tools to install their mods.  I have been loathe to participate in the ongoing discussion, as I do believe in the user having choice, but I also have been "tagged", if you will, to support CKAN installation issues with my mods, and I have ZERO control over CKAN's operation.  This does cause me an additional burden that I did not ask for.  

Since I have precious little time to maintain the mods I currently support, time wasted on support of any CKAN issues is simply not acceptable for me.  If you wish to use CKAN, great, but please take a bit of time to understand the modder's point of view.

Thanks!

[blu3wolf]

Or in this case, one thousand, two hundred and sixty four files into eighty three folders, assuming they use FAR, USI and MM.

[Guest]

Just now, blu3wolf said:

Or in this case, one thousand, two hundred and sixty four files into eighty three folders, assuming they use FAR, USI and MM.

The majority of which are subfolders and are completely ignored by the user because moving a folder also moves its contents.

[politas]

I would be unsurprised if CKAN entirely stops working  with ModuleManager delisted. People who already have it installed will maintain their local metadata for that installation, but anyone who needs to install it will be unable to. I don't think autodetection is possible for a mod that CKAN has no information about (which is what delisting does).

Edited June 26, 2016 by politas

[mjl1966]

2 hours ago, politas said:

Ok, I've had some sleep so now I can explain my actions. I created PR Allow foss delisting #1795 and have started behaving as though that change were accepted. As a result, I have delisted some mods on request. If there are any delisting requests that I haven't got to, I apologise for that. 

Given that ModuleManager is one of the mods I delisted, CKAN is effectively useless for most users now. Sarbian handed me the launch codes, and I fired the nuke.

So why did I do it? Mostly as a wake-up call to my fellow CKAN contributors. Insisting that CKAN is following FOSS ethos by keeping all FOSS mods available was not ultimately in the best interests of either the FOSS community or the KSP community. I have been thinking a lot about this over the last couple of days, and here's what I think is the fundamental problem: 

CKAN's policy was all about accessibility, and the rights of users. It was based on the assumption that all CKAN was doing was facilitating the installation of mods. Where it went wrong is in not taking into account the fact that in the minds of many CKAN users, CKAN also implicitly defines a support relationship, by linking to the "homepage" forum thread. We have attempted to disabuse users of that idea, but those efforts have been unsuccessful, and are likely to remain so, because people are people.

It is this expectation of support in the minds of users that has antagonised the modders, as far as I can see (combined with a perception of arrogance from CKAN team members and supporters). As such, I am going to act as though my PR #1795 has been accepted. Either we change the policy, or the CKAN team kick me out of the project.

So, looking through the IRC log, it seems you fellas have been spending the last day doing what needed to be done: talking about it in committee.  So, there you go.  I kind of fell silly for going on and on about "hey, you all need to work this out," when that's exactly what you've been doing.

Looks like you guys have it in hand and I'm sure you'll get there. 

[bos]

On the contrary, I just tried with a separate fresh install, and CKAN is basically completely broken now.

Other mods that depend on Module Manager don't even show up in the list. Even if Module Manager is installed via manual dll.

This includes mods for whom ckan is still the recommended install method. While I agree with your suggestion in general, I disagree for mods that could be considered core mods (Module Manager, Community Tech Tree, Community Resource Pack, and maybe Kopernicus come to mind). If a mod has enough different authors with dependencies, and the license is or has been a permissive one, then at least a week or two notice should be required to resolve the concern or find someone who will support it before delisting.

There is no need things have to happen right now.

Edited June 26, 2016 by bos

[blu3wolf]

You can of course write your own CKAN files to install ModuleManager that way. That makes it almost as much hassle as a manual install, though.

[anxcon]

1 minute ago, bos said:

While I agree with your suggestion in general, I disagree for mods that could be considered core mods (Module Manager, Community Tech Tree, Community Resource Pack, and maybe Kopernicus come to mind). If a mod has enough different authors with dependencies, and the license is or has been a permissive one, then at least a week or two should be given to resolve the concern or find someone who will support it before delisting.

so because a mod is successful, and the author put in large amount of support to push it to being that successful, he should have less courtesy / rights than small mods? and if he doesnt bow down hostile fork?

[politas]

3 minutes ago, bos said:

On the contrary, I just tried with a separate fresh install, and CKAN is basically completely broken now.

Other mods that depend on Module Manager don't even show up in the list. Even if Module Manager is installed via manual dll.

This includes mods for whom ckan is still the recommended install method. While I agree with your suggestion in general, I disagree for mods that could be considered core mods (Module Manager, Community Tech Tree, Community Resource Pack, and maybe Kopernicus come to mind). If a mod has enough different authors with dependencies, and the license is or has been a permissive one, then at least a week or two notice should be required to resolve the concern or find someone who will support it before delisting.

There is no need things have to happen right now.

I am not re-listing ModuleManager without @sarbian's request. There are technical measure users can use to work around it, but it will require them to find out a lot more about this tool they've been using.

[blu3wolf]

1 minute ago, politas said:

I am not re-listing ModuleManager without @sarbian's request. There are technical measure users can use to work around it, but it will require them to find out a lot more about this tool they've been using.

On average perhaps. I learned nothing new.

[politas]

1 minute ago, blu3wolf said:

On average perhaps. I learned nothing new.

Granted.

If someone forks MM, and creates a Forum thread to sets themselves up as the target of support requests, I'll happily add that fork as ModuleManager-Fork and have it provide ModuleManager. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, politas said:

Granted.

If someone forks MM, and creates a Forum thread to sets themselves up as the target of support requests, I'll happily add that fork as ModuleManager-Fork and have it provide ModuleManager. 

You know it would leak into the regular MM thread.

[politas]

9 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

You know it would leak into the regular MM thread.

I'm really hoping all this can settle down so it doesn't become necessary.

[Ippo]

Thank you @politas. I appreciate your courage in taking a painful decision. I too think it was the right thing to do.

[technicalfool]

34 minutes ago, CliftonM said:

You know it would leak into the regular MM thread.

If it does, point people at the fork thread. If they refuse to take no for an answer, hit the report button. Give your friendly neighbourhood philanthropists something to do.