Should repo uploaders be allowed to delete their contributions at will?

[Rockthesmurf]

Just to add, I think the current setup is ace, PNDs make life easy, the repo Milkshake setup is fantastic, and PND Manager makes grabbing the latest and greatest easy peasy.


My vote is to keep things how they are now, but that is just because they work well for me!


Wise words above too about everyone probably not agreeing, I will add it to the list of unsuitable dinner party topics after religion and politics!

 

[sswam]

My current position is as follows:


- the non-redistributable (nonfree) part of the repo should be run as a marketplace ...


- the redistributable (free) part of the repo should be run as a library ...


- it should be made very clear to the downloader which part of the repo he is in ...

^ _wb_, that is perfect, and I agree 100% ; but it might not be worth changing it.


For me, I don't think it's a huge big deal either way.

This would allow free software that is "deleted" to be easily restored by ED or an admin.

Even now, "deleted" PNDs are not actually deleted. (Ssssh!)

I think the current setup is ace

Agreed, it is ace. Gotta appreciate what we have!

 

[milkshake]

Even now, "deleted" PNDs are not actually deleted. (Ssssh!)

Do you grab the archived versions too?

 

[sswam]

Do you grab the archived versions too?

Nope, not yet. I don't have that kind of storage on my server, and I don't want to dominate ED's link.


If we can make the unpacked PNDs available through some sort of VCS like git, it might be practical to do that.


I can do that, but first I would need the data. It's a Catch-22!

 

[Caine]

As a developer, I have to say that this thread completely destroys the joy of writing free (GPL'ed) applications for this community in my spare time. I perceive the objections that some spread here as ungrateful, as if they have some sort of entitlement to the fruit of my spare-time labour.


I freely release my applications as GPL for anyone to use and modify. I will not remove them, but (hypothetically) if I would (e.g. to relinquish my role as a maintainer) then I do not think that re-uploading by a new maintainer would be too much to ask.


Most of my projects are currently on hold due to "real-life" obligations, but this thread just made me lose my motivation to make any changes to that.

 

[_wb_]

Why does this thread make you feel that way?


I still don't think removal and re-upload is the best way to arrange a swap of maintainers. Do you have any other reasons to remove GPL'ed packages?

 

[Caine]

Why does this thread make you feel that way?


I still don't think removal and re-upload is the best way to arrange a swap of maintainers. Do you have any other reasons to remove GPL'ed packages?

I have neither a reason nor the will to remove any packages. I write software because I think users will find it useful or will enjoy using it. Removing it doesn't make any sense in my opinion.


However, it is a fundamental right of developers to remove their software at will. One of the greatest feats of the Pandora is that it takes no rights away from developers like all other mobile and/or console platforms do. We don't have to relinquish control, we can determine our own price and release software for free when we so desire.


Some heavy battles have been fought over the repo with Craig in the past as the pandora appstore was suffering from lack of control by developers over their own software. Requests by developers to remove outdated software were being ignored which has lead to annoyances such as bug reports for bugs which were squashed ages ago. In the end, the repo pretty much became the standard. Users can easily download, discover and update their software and developers have an easy and non-restricted way to reach their audience. Everybody is happier this way.


Despite the absence of any real incidents (the only rage-quit that I'm aware of was Streak, and that was on facebook, not the repo), you are advocating the removal of these rights and the return to the old system. That feels a bit like a kick in the face and feels like you do not appreciate the work of the developers. I understand that you value your consumer rights, but in the same way we value our rights as developers.


The fact that developers have full control over the Software available here, without limitation, is what makes the Pandora great. To see users calling for the removal of this property hurts and saddens me. It will only scare away developers which will hurt the Pandora way more than the discomfort of having to occasionally re-upload one or two GPL'ed applications.


I strongly believe that a healthy developer ecosystem is the greatest way to ensure the availability of great software and ultimately the best user-experience.

 

[_wb_]

OK, let's keep it like it is then, but I still don't like the "remove and re-upload" mechanism to change the package maintainer. Not only could the interval between removal and re-upload be long (in case no new maintainer is found rapidly), it also deletes the ratings and comments and hides future updates from being visible in the "updates" list in PND Manager. And I don't see how having a better mechanism for that would take control away from devs.


How does not having a remove button (for freely redistributable, e.g. GPL'ed, stuff) scare away devs? Like you say, anyone can reupload the thing anyway, and at that point they have even less control because they aren't even package maintainer anymore.

 

[Binky]

Perhaps have a 'delete' button, and an 'abandon' button. If an app is abandoned, another user can volunteer to maintain it.


This would be better for users, and takes no power or rights from devs

 

[Caine]

How does not having a remove button (for freely redistributable, e.g. GPL'ed, stuff) scare away devs?

To me it is a matter of the repo being developer centric (in terms of rights) vs it being user centric. The redistributable flag is meaningless. The license determines what is allowed and what is not.


E.g. If a developer chooses to deprecate an application in favour of another, better one, that may be a very valid reason. If I was a user of the previous application and I feel the newer one does not satisfy my needs, then I would first seek dialogue with the developer before automatically re-uploading the older one. Perhaps missing functionality can be restored, perhaps there are other valid reasons for removal.


Trust the developers a bit more, having satisfied and happy users is one of the greatest rewards. I am convinced that you will find few developers here who would willfully sabotage their users, there is no need to try to dictate what they can and cannot do.


[edit]@Binky. I have nothing against such an abandon button, but I doubt it will see much use as most deletions have a very valid reason.[/edit]

 

[Binky]

If the dev has a good reason (and most probably do) when deleting something, thats not a problem. Nothing needs to be done about this


What is, is when someone gets wound up in a oversized flamewar, and quits in disgust, taking all their work with them.


A system encouraging abandonment, rather than deletion, without taking rights from devs (if possible) would be nice


What about a limit of one unmoderated delete per 24hours, where the dev could write a few words explaining the reason for the delete, to be left in place of the app


In contrast, there would be no limits on the power to abandon apps, and you could reclaim them by asking mods


Although this does put limits on devs, It seems a better compromise than many alternatives

 

[Caine]

Has there been a recent surge in PND removals that I missed or something? Why are you guys so persistent about controlling and/or moderating developers? I really feel like you are trying to solve a non-existing problem.


If a developer DOES get wound up then there are two scenarios possible:


1) He has a restricting license in place and you are legally obliged to remove his applications anyway.


2) He has some sort of copyleft license in place and anyone can re-upload the application.


If the consequence of GPL'ing applications is that developers have to explain their actions to some community jury then I fear they will simply no longer GPL their applications or refrain from Pandora development altogether.

 

[_wb_]

I like Binky's proposal.


I don't want to control or moderate devs, I just don't see any valid reason to remove something, except abuse. New maintainer should be handled in a different way. Deprecated application, then you probably still want to put a pointer at the old thing to the new thing and perhaps explain there why the new thing is better. Or just make the new thing an update of the old thing. Simply removing the old thing and hoping everybody will find the new thing, that's just not a very good solution.


We could also put a big red button called "Nuke ED's server with an atomic bomb" there for the devs, they will of course not use it, but it's important to trust the devs and give them full control. Sorry about the sarcasm. Or for a more realistic example, we could give all devs root access to the repo server. Yes, these things give them more control, and maybe it's true that they will not abuse this, but I still don't see a reason why this particular power is needed and how it can be used for good.

 

[Binky]

Has there been a recent surge in PND removals that I missed or something? Why are you guys so persistent about controlling and/or moderating developers? I really feel like you are trying to solve a non-existing problem.


If a developer DOES get wound up then there are two scenarios possible:


1) He has a restricting license in place and you are legally obliged to remove his applications anyway.


2) He has some sort of copyleft license in place and anyone can re-upload the application.


If the consequence of GPL'ing applications is that developers have to explain their actions to some community jury then I fear they will simply no longer GPL their applications or refrain from Pandora development altogether.

remember StreaK? The problem should not exist, but sometimes it does


Re-uploading is not a good solution


I never said that deletion of GPL'ed apps would require an explanation.


I said that deletion of any apps would encourage an explanation. The app would still be deleted, even if the explanation was a simple "F U" or suchlike


My proposal does not encroach on what an average, respectable dev would want to do.


All it does is prevent mass deletions without valid reason

 

[ZXDunny]

We could also put a big red button called "Nuke ED's server with an atomic bomb" there for the devs, they will of course not use it, but it's important to trust the devs and give them full control. Sorry about the sarcasm. Or for a more realistic example, we could give all devs root access to the repo server. Yes, these things give them more control, and maybe it's true that they will not abuse this, but I still don't see a reason why this particular power is needed and how it can be used for good.

...And this is the attitude that pisses people off. It's thanks to you that I no longer develop for the Pandora. I was wondering if I'd done the right thing, but now you've confirmed it. I'm not going to delete anything from the repo, I'm just going to go back to coding for the PC instead.


D.

 

[Binky]

How about:


Devs can delete their own stuff, without restriction


The app's page is left in place, but devs are encouraged (not forced) to edit it and explain the delete


If they like, they can delete all info and all screenshots on the page (although I can't see why)


If the app was under the GPL or similar, the page gets flagged for possible re-upload


Other users have the freedom to upload another copy of the app to that page, at their discretion - this would be clearly marked as a user upload

 

[Caine]

remember StreaK? The problem should not exist, but sometimes it does

I mentioned him as the only example of this issue in my previous post, so yes I do.

My proposal does not encroach on what an average, respectable dev would want to do.
All it does is prevent mass deletions without valid reason

All it does is scare away developers from the Pandora community, it does not solve anything which cannot be solved now.

 

[_wb_]

Is it that bad to scare away devs (from the repo) who really insist on needing the feature to do mass deletions quickly without valid reason?


Note that those developers can still make their own repo / use their own website to publish all the PNDs they want and then quickly delete them à volonté without any reason whatsoever, if they're really into that kind of stuff.

 

[mcobit]

Please stop now, if you want to say: "You don't like it, stay away from it" people will stay away from it.

 

[_wb_]

What do you mean, mcobit? I couldn't really parse that sentence.