=== 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
nhandlerjussi, tsimpson, Pici, topyli:  Who is here for the meeting?21:01
MootBotMeeting started at 15:01. The chair is nhandler.21:01
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]21:01
* Pici sits on nhandler 21:01
nhandler[TOPIC] Support channel bug parsing21:01
MootBotNew Topic:  Support channel bug parsing21:01
nhandler[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda21:01
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda21:01
nhandler[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal21:02
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal21:02
nhandlerPici: Care to briefly summarize this item?21:02
PiciI added this to the agenda firstly because kangaroo was so adamant about getting it enabled in #xubuntu21:03
PiciSecondly 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
PiciFeel free to correct me if I'm mistating things.21:04
nhandlerSo is there currently any technical reason for having it disabled?21:04
topylii have no idea21:05
PiciI can't really think of a good non-technical reason for keeping it disabled either.21:06
topylijussi called me earlier because he was uncertain if he can make the meeting and he definitely doesn't want it enabled21:06
nhandlertopyli: Did he give a reason for not wanting it enabled?21:06
PiciDid he give a reason?21:06
jussiIM here for like 2 seconds21:07
topylihe doesn't think it's useful21:07
topylijussi: oh, just in time. why don't you want the bot parsing bugs?21:08
jussiAnd the reason is that bugs in support channels add noise where there doesnt need to be noise.21:08
nhandlerjussi: and do you know if there are any technical reasons not to have the bug links enabled?21:08
jussinhandler: no technical reason, it waspart of the ubuntu is too noisy to be useful bug iirc.21:08
jussithere isnt a really good reason to have them on in a support channel21:08
PiciWhat about in #k and #x?21:09
PiciThey 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
jussiagain, noise where no noise is really needed21:09
nhandlerI would be interested in seeing how many times in a day and how often they would get used if enabled21:09
nhandlerI find it hard to believe they would create more noise than say some of the more useless factoids we have21:10
topylikangaroo predicts 0 to 2 times a day in #xubuntu21:10
jussiI dont think they are useful, but if you want them enabled then do so. I strongly suggest against it in #u.21:10
PiciI'm a bit iffy on it getting enabled in #u as well.21:11
jussiI need to go, but my vote is no to all core support chans21:11
nhandlerI personally would be interested in enabling them for a trial run and just seeing how much noise they actually create21:11
nhandlerBye jussi21:11
topylijussi: have fun21:11
nhandlerMany 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
topyliwell users referring to a bug probably have the bug report open in their browser and might as well paste the link in the first place21:13
topylihowever, we're not changing users21:13
nhandlertopyli: Well, the bot also includes some additional useful info in the message (status, package, etc)21:13
nhandlerIt would be a pain for a user to copy/paste all of that info21:13
topylii liked the feature myself when it was still there21:14
PiciI'm willing to give it a trial run in #x and #k21:14
nhandlerI 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
guntbertI advocate against bug reports in pure support channels - they are noisy by themselves and generate addittional noise/discussions21:15
nhandlerThey 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
nhandlerAlright, 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
topylii've been failing to form an opinion. maybe a trial period would be smart21:18
guntbertnhandler: 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 dicussions21:18
topyliguntbert: sure, they can bring up discussions like "why is this bug still not fixed? developers suck"21:19
Piciargh. I keep typing my command to get to this channel in other ones.21:19
guntberttopyli: exactly21:19
topylinhandler: how do we determine success and failure in the trial, if taken?21:20
nhandlerWell, 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 numbers21:20
PiciI 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
guntbertPici: :) it seems you have a lot of channels open21:20
nhandlertopyli: Well, the "noise" complaint can be looked at based on the numbers that we can pull from the logs21:21
nhandlerThe "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 posted21:21
topylithat will tell us noise directly from the bot. would have to check how much offtopic discussion it generates21:21
guntbertnhandler: right now nearly nobody posts bug numbers in #ubuntu - I don't know about #xu and #ku though21:22
nhandlerIf the results look promising, we could expand the trial to #u. If not, we can disable it in #k and #x21:22
nhandlerguntbert: Well, if not many people post them, then having it enabled wouldn't do much harm ;)21:22
guntbertnhandler: as there are several people who jump on anything - I expect that number to increase ...21:23
topylii can agree to the trial. if it seems harmful, we'll just disable it again and try to keep the press out21:23
PiciShall we vote?21:23
PiciOn 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
MootBotPlease 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
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:24
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:24
MootBot+1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 121:24
MootBot+1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 221:24
MootBot+1 received from Pici. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 321:25
MootBotFinal result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 321:25
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, expand21:25
MootBotAGREED received:  Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand21:25
nhandler                               trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x.21:25
nhandlerDoes 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
topyliif two weeks is enough, we can check on this  in the next meeting21:26
PiciI think it will be.21:26
PiciEspecially because we're getting 10.04.1 this week.21:26
nhandlerAnd does someone want to take the [ACTION] to actually enable the bug info in those channels?21:27
PiciI'm not sure if my bot access is working enough to do that21:28
topylii could try grepping the logs before the next meeting21:28
nhandlerPici: 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 enabled21:28
PiciI 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 enabled21:29
MootBotACTION 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 enabled21:29
nhandlerPici: Probably21:29
nhandlerPici: But can you take the action to either directly or indirectly get the bug info enabled?21:29
Picinhandler: Sure thing.21:29
nhandlerThanks a lot21:30
nhandler[ACTION] Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu21:30
MootBotACTION received:  Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu21:30
nhandlerAnything more for this item?21:30
PiciI'd also like to bring up another issue that I didn't put on the agenda.21:30
nhandlerPici: What is the issue?21:30
PiciAbout enabling bot features without discussion.21:30
nhandler[TOPIC] Enabling Bot Features without discussion21:31
MootBotNew Topic:  Enabling Bot Features without discussion21:31
nhandlerPici: Go ahead21:31
PiciI 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
Picis/the mailing list/on the mailing list/21:32
nhandlerWell, I think certain things are safe to enable/implement without discussion, noisy channel notifications like that should have been brought up21:33
topylithis one has been annoying some ops21:33
PiciI think that any new features should be announced on the mailing list.21:34
Pici(it has been annoying me)21:35
nhandlerI don't know about "any", but any visible/big changes or changes that will affect the workflow of OPs should probably be announced there21:36
topylinot a lot of work to do that21:36
topyliwell that probably doesn't make sense. read: doing that is not a lot of work :)21:37
nhandlerBut 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
PiciI think it warrants discussion.21:37
nhandlerAgreed. 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
FlannelThe 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 pings21:39
nhandlerFlannel: From a technical point of view, I would think that would be trivial to do21:39
topylimaybe it would be useful for the bot devel team to communicate more on the ML, tell us what's cooking21:40
Flannelnhandler: From a non-technical standpoint, would it diminish the feature in any way?21:40
PiciThats a reasonable expectation21:40
nhandlerFlannel: It would make it less noticable (which can be seen as a bad ting)21:41
Flanneltopyli: Personally, I'd love to hear more about what awesome features are being added and I can look forward to.21:41
rwwor help implement, even21:41
PiciI think it would also encourage people to suggest new ideas.21:41
=== ^peanut^ is now known as hiku
nhandlerDoes 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
topylido they have a mailing list?21:42
nhandlertopyli: You could use the 'Contact this Team' feature on LP. I'm not sure if they have a ML21:42
PiciThey have a channel21:43
PiciMore than one.21:43
nhandlerSo any volunteers for the action?21:44
topylii can do it21:45
nhandler[ACTION] topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication21:45
MootBotACTION received:  topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication21:45
nhandlerAny more topics to discuss?21:45
topylibshellz maybe21:46
topylithey have a blanket ban on #ubuntu, #x, #k at least, it's used for ban evasion regularly21:46
topylior so i've been told21:46
nhandler[TOPIC] bshellz21:47
MootBotNew Topic:  bshellz21:47
PiciI think ikonia knows the most about that21:47
topylirecently a blanket ban has been requested for -server as well21:47
topyliikonia yes21:47
nhandlerI 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
rwwI 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
nhandlerI 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
topylii'm under the impression that their admins are not keen on "policing" their users21:51
nhandlerWell, 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 decision21:52
PiciI think so.21:54
topylidiscussing on ML might be a good idea, blanket bans are not to my liking either really21:54
topyliwe could poke ikonia to start the discussion maybe?21:54
nhandlerIf 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
nhandlertopyli: Probably best. That way, the initial message will contain some real/useful info21:55
nhandlerSomeone want to poke him? If not, I could21:56
nhandler[ACTION] nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue21:56
PiciI could poke him, but probably not until monday morning.21:56
MootBotACTION received:  nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue21:56
nhandlerPici: That is ok. I'll take care of it (I realized I didn't take any actions yet)21:57
nhandlerAny more items?21:57
PiciNot from me.21:57
nhandlertopyli: ?21:58
nhandlerAlright, anyone want to take care of the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll get those too.21:58
PiciThanks for volunteering ;)21:59
nhandler[ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks22:00
MootBotACTION received:  nhandler to do post-meeting tasks22:00
nhandlerThanks for coming everyone22:00
MootBotMeeting finished at 16:00.22:00
PiciHave a good weekend everyone :)22:00
topylithanks guys, good meeting22:01

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!