=== unimix|home is now known as unimix
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
tomswartz07Does anyone notice that 'calendar' is spelled wrong in the topic? jussi01 has it spelled 'calender'06:53
=== persia changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Google Calendar doesn't understand UTC. Please check in UTC time and confirm meeting times on the fridge
tomswartz07haha. thanks06:55
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
ZottoHola a todos16:37
gorillaZotto: This is not a discussion channel but for meetings only.16:39
Zottooh sorry, do you know where i have support?16:39
gorillatry #ubuntu-team16:41
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
jussiooh, we have a topyli19:02
topylineed 5min, sorry19:02
jussiwe dont have quorum yet anyway19:02
jussiooh, hi Pici19:02
jussi@random Pici topyli jussi19:03
jussiyou are chairing then...19:04
gnomefreakincluding me only 4 people?19:04
MootBotMeeting started at 13:04. The chair is Pici.19:04
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]19:04
* jussi wonders if LjL is around19:04
Pici#topic Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected19:05
Pici[topic] Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected19:05
MootBotNew Topic:  Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected19:05
LjLI will have to leave for dinner shortly, so I have prepared my points beforehand. Should I start pasting?19:05
* Pici fumbles with mootbot19:05
PiciGo ahead19:06
LjLMy agenda item is about whether or not it is appropriate for someone to discuss the operator actions involved in a ban (or similar measure) even when the ban involved a different user.19:06
LjLI think it should be, mostly in the name of open debate and criticism. Specifically:19:06
LjL- generally speaking, open discussion of the policies is a good thing, and like it or not, when it comes to IRC, bans become an important part of policy making19:06
LjL- the banned person is not always in the best position to discuss their own ban, even if they have some constructive criticism about it, because they are likely to either avoid further attrition with the ops in order to get their ban lifted, or sometimes get very upset about what they feel was an unfair ban, and not act with the needed calm19:06
LjL- someone lobbying against a ban on behalf of the banned may be their friend, and just doing it to get their ban lifted; however, it shouldn't be difficult for the ops to use common sense to tell apart this situation (example: the person complaining was never in the channel before) from the case where someone has concerns about policies implied in the ban (as opposed to purely the ban itself)19:07
LjLIn the incident that caused me to bring this up in the agenda, for instance, one of the reasons I attempted to discuss ryaxnb's ban was that days before, when Flannel asked him if he could drop a topic that was perceived as uninteresting, I had said:19:07
LjL[00:52] <LjL> ryaxnbuntu: i don't think he was speaking as an op there though. as much as we might all be tired of your ramblings, there is no particular reason to actually request stopping that discussion.19:07
LjLBecause I said that to ryaxnb in good faith, and then later he was banned on the grounds of doing what I had told him he wouldn't be banned for, I believe I had a legitimate interest in his ban (rather than being a "sent" by him to "bully", as I was perhaps too hastily accused of doing).19:08
LjLI also believe similar circumstances where someone may have a legitimate interest in a ban, even though he's not directly involved in it, are potentially many; I'd say they are more than the cases where the concern is not legitimate.19:08
LjLSo, please don't gag everyone just because there will always be someone complaining for the sake of complaining.19:08
jussilol, was typing the same thing19:10
* gnomefreak im still trying to figure out the first part of it19:11
jussiWhile can understand LjL's point, there is also a point to be made for discussion of the ban only with affected parties. pehaps it should be extended to "relevant parties"?19:12
topyliops discuss each others' actions. letting users do the same is a slippery slope19:13
LjLHow do you determine relevancy? Also, what would happen if someone (me, for instance) asked "theoretically", "hypothetically" about whether the guidelines/policies would justify taking action against a user, without making any specific reference?19:14
jussidevils advocate a bit, lets look at it like this:  what bad things can happen from discussing bans with any user intersted?19:14
topylijussi: some such restriction could work, although "relevant" is hard to define19:14
LjLtopyli: I absolutely disagree with that statement. This is not a democracy, but it's a community. You can't get the users completely out of the loop like that, because the users MAKE the community.19:14
PiciWe have a number of people in our channels who aren't ops who I would accept criticism from regarding my actions as an operator.19:15
topyliLjL: true. just pondering how to keep it sane19:15
LjLtopyli: as I said, i think common sense would work. A user who you've never seen before join -ops and asks "why did you ban XYZ?!". You check the logs, and apparently that person wasn't even present when the ban happened. What gives? Well, you tell them to have the involved person join.19:16
topylicommon sense is indeed handy19:16
LjLThere really is no need to let them be the banned entity's attorney in that case. But even then, if they go on to say something like "I'm not asking for the ban to be removed, but I would like to clarify with you the policies that led to that", what's wrong with that, even if it involved criticism?19:17
jussibut there needs to be some codification of it19:17
PiciWe tell people that if they have a problem with the actions of an operator or one of our channel policies that they can join -ops to discuss, isn't what LjL is suggesting just an extension of that?19:18
jussiyes, it is.19:18
LjLI think it's... just that, actually.19:18
IdleOneI feel that any user asking for clarification about a specific ban is entitled to it, NOT while the op is discussing it with the user affected by the ban.19:18
LjLI was indeed very put off when I was told it wasn't appropriate. I thought I was merely following the !appeals factoid.19:18
LjLIdleOne: agreed.19:19
gnomefreakbut isnt that why the bot asks us to comment on a remove/ban so that it is posted to the bt. and i am assuming everyone has access to it not just ops19:19
LjLIt isn't a public show, or for that matter a TV tribune, for sure.19:19
Picignomefreak: no the bt is operator access only.19:19
LjLgnomefreak: only ops have BT access.19:19
jussignomefreak: not yet, if we get bt2 up soon...19:19
IdleOneLjL: I think it was not appropriate at the time because flannel was in the middle of talking to ryan..19:20
LjLIdleOne: what? No, he wasn't...19:20
IdleOneLjL: I might be mistaken, I would have to look back at the log19:20
LjLUnless by "in the middle" you mean idle for a day or so19:20
IdleOnein any case, I think you have the right to join -ops and ask why a ban was placed.19:21
LjLFor clarity - what happened is that I joined #ubuntu-ops, asked for "a rationale for ryaxnb's ban"; ikonia started discussing that with me; then elky pointed out that bullies sent by the bannee aren't welcome, and that she didn't know bans were discussed with third-parties.19:22
topylii think LjL's case provides an example of what we should allow. but how to generalize it as policy, i don't know offhand19:22
LjLFlannel wasn't involved at that time.19:22
Picitopyli: Thats what I've been trying to figure out.19:22
jussitopyli: +119:22
PiciI don't want to see -ops turning into a zoo.19:22
gnomefreakthe disscussion should stop at why. it never not extend to "please un ban him" or anything the like19:23
LjLHonestly, don't you think that maybe the time (which is, I have to say, *very* long on average) ops tend to spend discussing bans with people who are, let's face it, often obvious trolls, could be better spent addressing *other* people's concerns?19:23
IdleOnetopyli: agreed, it is hard to make a policy on something that requires common sense19:23
topyliIdleOne: aye19:23
LjLgnomefreak: not "please unban him", but certainly criticism of the reasons the ban was placed should be acceptable.19:24
LjLBesides, if it's not acceptable for the IRC Council, then the only other venue would be the Community Council. Is that warranted?19:24
topylimistakes happen all the time, after all19:24
gnomefreakLjL: i agree with that.im just worried that it will get that far19:24
jussiLjL: feel free to propose policy wording if you have something you have been thinking of.19:24
IdleOneLjL: I think the fear here is like Pici said -ops could potentially turn into a zoo19:24
LjLIdleOne: that's why it's called "common sense" and not "policy" ;)19:24
gnomefreakmaybe a PM might be better off?19:25
LjLjussi: I really don't think there is need for any written policy myself. !Appeals already tell people what they can expect to be able to do, just fine.19:25
LjLgnomefreak: PM might work sometimes but I don't think the IRC Team should reserve the right to force everything to PM. That's why #ubuntu-ops exists and why there's supposed to be transparency...19:25
ubottuIf you disagree with a decision by an operator, please first pay #ubuntu-ops a visit. If you are still unhappy, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess for the steps you should take. If you feel the need to discuss the channel rules, please contact the ops on IRC or via the email address on the aforementioned page.19:26
LjLWritten policy, in my opinion, would be warranted if the decision were to NOT allow talk about bans. But if the decision will be to allow it, then why policy?19:27
PiciI think we should make a slight modification to the wording of the appeals wiki to make it match what the factoid says.  i.e, you don't need to be the target of the action to start a dialog.19:27
LjLI have to leave now, even though I might be able to peek once every few minutes.19:28
jussido we then allow "attorney" style antics?19:28
jussior is this just a policy discussion mechanism19:28
PiciYes.  Just like we allow discussion of other irc issues.19:29
IdleOnewe allow users to ask why a ban was set but not allow a third party to "defend" the banee19:29
topylii'd say it falls under the ability of anybody to join -ops and discuss things that worry them19:29
guntbertjussi: I haven't seen the attempt from anyone to speak "on behalve" of someone else - so no "attorney style"19:29
PiciIt happens, but its fairly rare.19:30
guntbertand should definitely not be accepted19:30
jussiso my view is we add something that says roughly "if yo want to discuss policy relating to a ban feel free to join -ops"19:31
* gnomefreak has learned it is not a smart thing to do since people are not always predictible19:31
gnomefreakmake a note that it stops at policy (at least it should stop there or it can get messy)19:32
topylijussi: yeah, it would keep current policy but clarify it19:32
LjLOne more thing - if it's decided that these discussions are to be allowed, then I will probably join #ubuntu-ops again and discuss ryaxnb's ban, *even though the ban has been lifted*, because I am concerned about the relevant policies. Do you see how that is definitely not being anyone's attorney? They aren't banned!19:32
jussiPici: do you think a vote is appropriate at this point?19:33
Picijussi: I was just going to suggest it19:33
IdleOneWho can vote exactly? just IRCC member right?19:34
topyliLjL: say if ryaxnb and whoever banned him were discussing his ban. *then* it would not be ok for you to interfere. othrwise, it would not be interference but general policy discussion19:34
Pici[vote] Shall we slightly revise the appeals wiki entry to clarify that users may dispute operator actions even when they were not the user affected by such actions?19:34
MootBotPlease vote on:  Shall we slightly revise the appeals wiki entry to clarify that users may dispute operator actions even when they were not the user affected by such actions?.19:34
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 MootBot19:34
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting19:34
MootBot+1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 119:35
MootBot+1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 219:35
MootBot+1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 319:35
gnomefreakbe voting can we make a trial run out of it first to see how it will run?19:35
MootBotFinal result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 319:35
jussignomefreak: everything we do is a trial, if it doesnt work, you raise it and we talk about it a again19:35
PiciWho wants to make the changes?19:36
jussiPici: nhandler said feel free to assign him something...19:36
Pici[action] nhandler to revise wiki page19:36
MootBotACTION received:  nhandler to revise wiki page19:36
jussinow, any bugs open?19:36
topylithanks nhandler! :)19:37
PiciI don't think theres anything else.19:38
jussiok, thanks everyone! :)19:38
MootBotMeeting finished at 13:38.19:38
PiciI'll put the notes up later.19:39
=== undifined is now known as UndiFineD
=== LjL is now known as Guest43412
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
=== Guest43412 is now known as LjL

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