| === oubiwann-away is now known as oubiwann | ||
| === Andre_Gondim is now known as Andre_Gondim-afk | ||
| === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha | ||
| === lifeless_ is now known as lifeless | ||
| === duanedesign is now known as duanedesign_____ | ||
| === duanedesign_____ is now known as duanedesign | ||
| === yofel_ is now known as yofel | ||
| Pici | hi | 21:01 |
|---|---|---|
| nhandler | jussi, tsimpson, Pici, topyli: Who is here for the meeting? | 21:01 |
| topyli | o/ | 21:01 |
| nhandler | #startmeeting | 21:01 |
| MootBot | Meeting started at 15:01. The chair is nhandler. | 21:01 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 21:01 |
| * Pici sits on nhandler | 21:01 | |
| nhandler | [TOPIC] Support channel bug parsing | 21:01 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Support channel bug parsing | 21:01 |
| nhandler | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda | 21:01 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda | 21:01 |
| nhandler | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal | 21:02 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal | 21:02 |
| nhandler | Pici: Care to briefly summarize this item? | 21:02 |
| Pici | I added this to the agenda firstly because kangaroo was so adamant about getting it enabled in #xubuntu | 21:03 |
| Pici | Secondly because we had it disabled because the host that ubottu was on originally wasn't that powerful, which was the reason *I* thought that bug parsing was disabled. Now, we're on a beefier host. | 21:04 |
| Pici | Feel free to correct me if I'm mistating things. | 21:04 |
| nhandler | So is there currently any technical reason for having it disabled? | 21:04 |
| topyli | i have no idea | 21:05 |
| Pici | I can't really think of a good non-technical reason for keeping it disabled either. | 21:06 |
| topyli | jussi called me earlier because he was uncertain if he can make the meeting and he definitely doesn't want it enabled | 21:06 |
| nhandler | topyli: Did he give a reason for not wanting it enabled? | 21:06 |
| Pici | Did he give a reason? | 21:06 |
| jussi | IM here for like 2 seconds | 21:07 |
| topyli | he doesn't think it's useful | 21:07 |
| topyli | jussi: oh, just in time. why don't you want the bot parsing bugs? | 21:08 |
| jussi | And the reason is that bugs in support channels add noise where there doesnt need to be noise. | 21:08 |
| nhandler | jussi: and do you know if there are any technical reasons not to have the bug links enabled? | 21:08 |
| jussi | nhandler: no technical reason, it waspart of the ubuntu is too noisy to be useful bug iirc. | 21:08 |
| jussi | there isnt a really good reason to have them on in a support channel | 21:08 |
| Pici | What about in #k and #x? | 21:09 |
| Pici | They aren't as busy and I know that #k gets a little bit of bug related issues, due to backports and people trying to install new kde ppas. | 21:09 |
| jussi | again, noise where no noise is really needed | 21:09 |
| nhandler | I would be interested in seeing how many times in a day and how often they would get used if enabled | 21:09 |
| nhandler | I find it hard to believe they would create more noise than say some of the more useless factoids we have | 21:10 |
| topyli | kangaroo predicts 0 to 2 times a day in #xubuntu | 21:10 |
| jussi | I dont think they are useful, but if you want them enabled then do so. I strongly suggest against it in #u. | 21:10 |
| Pici | I'm a bit iffy on it getting enabled in #u as well. | 21:11 |
| jussi | I need to go, but my vote is no to all core support chans | 21:11 |
| nhandler | I personally would be interested in enabling them for a trial run and just seeing how much noise they actually create | 21:11 |
| jussi | bye | 21:11 |
| nhandler | Bye jussi | 21:11 |
| topyli | jussi: have fun | 21:11 |
| Pici | byas | 21:11 |
| nhandler | Many times, if a bot doesn't respond with a link, I see other users simply go and copy/paste the link to the channel (creating the same amount of "noise") | 21:12 |
| topyli | well users referring to a bug probably have the bug report open in their browser and might as well paste the link in the first place | 21:13 |
| topyli | however, we're not changing users | 21:13 |
| nhandler | topyli: Well, the bot also includes some additional useful info in the message (status, package, etc) | 21:13 |
| nhandler | It would be a pain for a user to copy/paste all of that info | 21:13 |
| topyli | yeah | 21:13 |
| topyli | i liked the feature myself when it was still there | 21:14 |
| Pici | I'm willing to give it a trial run in #x and #k | 21:14 |
| nhandler | I also feel that the noise bug is less related to join/part messages and bot messages and more to the large number of users that are sending a large number of messages. | 21:15 |
| guntbert | I advocate against bug reports in pure support channels - they are noisy by themselves and generate addittional noise/discussions | 21:15 |
| nhandler | They generate noise, but what is the ratio of the bot's bug messages to the number of messages sent by normal users? My guess is a very small percent (and definitely less than the percent of messages made up by factoids) | 21:16 |
| nhandler | Alright, let's take this one step at a time. Are there any objections to trialing it in #k and #x for a few weeks? | 21:18 |
| topyli | i've been failing to form an opinion. maybe a trial period would be smart | 21:18 |
| guntbert | nhandler: its hard even now to prevent the start of off topic discussions - with those bug messages there might be still more effort needed to prevent needless dicussions | 21:18 |
| topyli | guntbert: sure, they can bring up discussions like "why is this bug still not fixed? developers suck" | 21:19 |
| Pici | argh. I keep typing my command to get to this channel in other ones. | 21:19 |
| guntbert | topyli: exactly | 21:19 |
| topyli | nhandler: how do we determine success and failure in the trial, if taken? | 21:20 |
| nhandler | Well, right now, this is just pure speculation. Until we actually trial it, there is no way to know what type of discussion the bug links will cause. But I find it hard to believe that the discussion will be much different than people who simply post bug numbers | 21:20 |
| Pici | I don't think that the bot parsing the bug is going to encourage people to do that any more than they already do. | 21:20 |
| guntbert | Pici: :) it seems you have a lot of channels open | 21:20 |
| nhandler | topyli: Well, the "noise" complaint can be looked at based on the numbers that we can pull from the logs | 21:21 |
| nhandler | The "off topic discussion" issue will be harder, but we can still look through the logs for the types of discussions that took place around the time a bug link was posted | 21:21 |
| topyli | that will tell us noise directly from the bot. would have to check how much offtopic discussion it generates | 21:21 |
| topyli | yeah | 21:22 |
| guntbert | nhandler: right now nearly nobody posts bug numbers in #ubuntu - I don't know about #xu and #ku though | 21:22 |
| nhandler | If the results look promising, we could expand the trial to #u. If not, we can disable it in #k and #x | 21:22 |
| nhandler | guntbert: Well, if not many people post them, then having it enabled wouldn't do much harm ;) | 21:22 |
| guntbert | nhandler: as there are several people who jump on anything - I expect that number to increase ... | 21:23 |
| topyli | i can agree to the trial. if it seems harmful, we'll just disable it again and try to keep the press out | 21:23 |
| Pici | Shall we vote? | 21:23 |
| Pici | On it being enabled for a trail run in #xubuntu and #kubuntu ? | 21:24 |
| nhandler | [vote] Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x. | 21:24 |
| MootBot | Please vote on: Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x.. | 21:24 |
| MootBot | Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot | 21:24 |
| MootBot | E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting | 21:24 |
| nhandler | +1 | 21:24 |
| MootBot | +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:24 |
| topyli | +1 | 21:24 |
| MootBot | +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 | 21:24 |
| Pici | +1 | 21:25 |
| MootBot | +1 received from Pici. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 | 21:25 |
| nhandler | [ENDVOTE] | 21:25 |
| MootBot | Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 | 21:25 |
| nhandler | [AGREED] Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand | 21:25 |
| MootBot | AGREED received: Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand | 21:25 |
| nhandler | trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x. | 21:25 |
| nhandler | Does someone want to take the action to look through the logs (at least for the noise) item and try to analyze it a bit? | 21:26 |
| topyli | if two weeks is enough, we can check on this in the next meeting | 21:26 |
| Pici | I think it will be. | 21:26 |
| Pici | Especially because we're getting 10.04.1 this week. | 21:26 |
| nhandler | And does someone want to take the [ACTION] to actually enable the bug info in those channels? | 21:27 |
| Pici | I'm not sure if my bot access is working enough to do that | 21:28 |
| topyli | i could try grepping the logs before the next meeting | 21:28 |
| nhandler | Pici: I thought tsimpson gave us access. But if not, you could poke people with access (who know more about the bots than me) to get it enabled | 21:28 |
| Pici | I have a feeling our regulars will give us enough feedback. | 21:29 |
| nhandler | [ACTION] topyli to grep the logs of #k and #x before the next meeting to try and analyze the effect of having the bug info enabled | 21:29 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: topyli to grep the logs of #k and #x before the next meeting to try and analyze the effect of having the bug info enabled | 21:29 |
| nhandler | Pici: Probably | 21:29 |
| nhandler | Pici: But can you take the action to either directly or indirectly get the bug info enabled? | 21:29 |
| Pici | nhandler: Sure thing. | 21:29 |
| nhandler | Thanks a lot | 21:30 |
| nhandler | [ACTION] Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu | 21:30 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu | 21:30 |
| nhandler | Anything more for this item? | 21:30 |
| Pici | I'd also like to bring up another issue that I didn't put on the agenda. | 21:30 |
| nhandler | Pici: What is the issue? | 21:30 |
| Pici | About enabling bot features without discussion. | 21:30 |
| nhandler | [TOPIC] Enabling Bot Features without discussion | 21:31 |
| MootBot | New Topic: Enabling Bot Features without discussion | 21:31 |
| nhandler | Pici: Go ahead | 21:31 |
| Pici | I think that this recent 'announce floodbot bans' thing in #ubuntu-ops should have been discussed on at least the mailing list, and possibly during an IRCC meeting. | 21:32 |
| Pici | s/the mailing list/on the mailing list/ | 21:32 |
| nhandler | Well, I think certain things are safe to enable/implement without discussion, noisy channel notifications like that should have been brought up | 21:33 |
| topyli | this one has been annoying some ops | 21:33 |
| Pici | I think that any new features should be announced on the mailing list. | 21:34 |
| Pici | (it has been annoying me) | 21:35 |
| nhandler | I don't know about "any", but any visible/big changes or changes that will affect the workflow of OPs should probably be announced there | 21:36 |
| topyli | not a lot of work to do that | 21:36 |
| topyli | well that probably doesn't make sense. read: doing that is not a lot of work :) | 21:37 |
| nhandler | But I guess the question is, if someone voices an objection on the ML, should that mean that they don't go ahead with the feature? | 21:37 |
| Pici | I think it warrants discussion. | 21:37 |
| nhandler | Agreed. Since ubottu has been granted an exception to our no-bot policy, it should at least behave in a way we find acceptable. | 21:39 |
| Flannel | The current feature in question, can it simply be changed to normal channel messages in -ops-monitor instead? That'd keep the utility of the feature, without the pings | 21:39 |
| nhandler | Flannel: From a technical point of view, I would think that would be trivial to do | 21:39 |
| topyli | maybe it would be useful for the bot devel team to communicate more on the ML, tell us what's cooking | 21:40 |
| Flannel | nhandler: From a non-technical standpoint, would it diminish the feature in any way? | 21:40 |
| Pici | Thats a reasonable expectation | 21:40 |
| nhandler | Flannel: It would make it less noticable (which can be seen as a bad ting) | 21:41 |
| Flannel | topyli: Personally, I'd love to hear more about what awesome features are being added and I can look forward to. | 21:41 |
| topyli | likewise | 21:41 |
| rww | or help implement, even | 21:41 |
| Pici | I think it would also encourage people to suggest new ideas. | 21:41 |
| === ^peanut^ is now known as hiku | ||
| nhandler | Does someone want to take the action of contacting the bot devs about this? I think we are all in agreement that a bit more communication would be nice. | 21:42 |
| topyli | do they have a mailing list? | 21:42 |
| nhandler | topyli: You could use the 'Contact this Team' feature on LP. I'm not sure if they have a ML | 21:42 |
| Pici | They have a channel | 21:43 |
| Pici | More than one. | 21:43 |
| topyli | yep | 21:43 |
| nhandler | So any volunteers for the action? | 21:44 |
| topyli | i can do it | 21:45 |
| nhandler | [ACTION] topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication | 21:45 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication | 21:45 |
| nhandler | Any more topics to discuss? | 21:45 |
| topyli | bshellz maybe | 21:46 |
| topyli | they have a blanket ban on #ubuntu, #x, #k at least, it's used for ban evasion regularly | 21:46 |
| topyli | or so i've been told | 21:46 |
| nhandler | [TOPIC] bshellz | 21:47 |
| MootBot | New Topic: bshellz | 21:47 |
| Pici | I think ikonia knows the most about that | 21:47 |
| topyli | recently a blanket ban has been requested for -server as well | 21:47 |
| topyli | ikonia yes | 21:47 |
| nhandler | I haven't been that on-top-of this issue. Any estimates on the number of legit users that use bshellz vs. the number of evaders? | 21:48 |
| rww | I think a lot of the legit users moved off it when it was k-lined completely for a while. I know I did. | 21:49 |
| nhandler | I don't like blanket bans in general, but I would be interested in knowing if it would be easier to blacklist evaders or to whitelist legit users (+e) | 21:49 |
| topyli | i'm under the impression that their admins are not keen on "policing" their users | 21:51 |
| nhandler | Well, it loos like ikonia is /away right now. Do you think this might be a good topic for the ML? That way, we could get info from other OPs and users before making a decision | 21:52 |
| Pici | I think so. | 21:54 |
| topyli | discussing on ML might be a good idea, blanket bans are not to my liking either really | 21:54 |
| topyli | we could poke ikonia to start the discussion maybe? | 21:54 |
| nhandler | If it turns out that most bshellz users are problem makers, we could look into setting up a process to grant +e to legit users (we could always revoke that if they misbehave and need to be banned) | 21:55 |
| nhandler | topyli: Probably best. That way, the initial message will contain some real/useful info | 21:55 |
| topyli | yes | 21:55 |
| nhandler | Someone want to poke him? If not, I could | 21:56 |
| nhandler | [ACTION] nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue | 21:56 |
| Pici | I could poke him, but probably not until monday morning. | 21:56 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue | 21:56 |
| nhandler | Pici: That is ok. I'll take care of it (I realized I didn't take any actions yet) | 21:57 |
| nhandler | Any more items? | 21:57 |
| Pici | Not from me. | 21:57 |
| nhandler | topyli: ? | 21:58 |
| topyli | nope | 21:58 |
| nhandler | Alright, anyone want to take care of the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll get those too. | 21:58 |
| Pici | Thanks for volunteering ;) | 21:59 |
| topyli | :) | 21:59 |
| nhandler | [ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks | 22:00 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: nhandler to do post-meeting tasks | 22:00 |
| nhandler | Thanks for coming everyone | 22:00 |
| nhandler | #endmeeting | 22:00 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 16:00. | 22:00 |
| Pici | Have a good weekend everyone :) | 22:00 |
| topyli | midnight! | 22:01 |
| topyli | thanks guys, good meeting | 22:01 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!