=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== jjohansen is now known as jj-afk
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs
=== smoser` is now known as smoser
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
* tsimpson uses a ctcp action to indicate he is here19:59
topylivery l33t!20:00
Picivery meta/20:00
* jussi waves tiredly20:00
topylinhandler said he'll be late20:01
jussitopyli:shall we begin?20:01
MootBotMeeting started at 14:01. The chair is topyli.20:01
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]20:01
topyli[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda20:01
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda20:01
topyli[topic] Volunteering for duties and time management within the IRCC20:01
MootBotNew Topic:  Volunteering for duties and time management within the IRCC20:01
topyliSeeker`: around?20:02
PiciI believe  seeker wanted us to remmeber that if we don't have time to do a task that delegate it to our operators.20:02
topylii'm not sure if this is even necessary, anyone in the team can volunteer, and should! :)20:02
jussiie. rww is a priime example :)20:02
* rww polishes halo20:03
topyliyeah, and others are doing a good job too20:03
topylilet's move on20:03
topyli[topic] Ubuntu IRC Council not responsible for all core channels20:03
MootBotNew Topic:  Ubuntu IRC Council not responsible for all core channels20:03
topyliikonia: around?20:03
PiciHes in the states this weekend, I'm not sure if he was going to be able to make it to this meeting.20:04
PiciI think that we know what he was talking about right?20:04
topyliwell we can discuss it still20:04
topyliwe have nhandler's input, i could paste it here20:05
PiciFor those of you who don't, it was referring to the control, or lack-thereof in channels such as #kubuntu and #ubuntu-devel20:06
jussitopyli: paste it20:06
topyli For ikonia's issue, as I mentioned, we have the authority from the CC and freenode to manage the Ubuntu project namespace on freenode. However, we also have the ability to delegate. We delegate authority to small team/LoCo channels to basically manage themselves (to an extent), we also have delegated some authority to people like the KC to add OPs. They can not override us on the IRC matters (they can appeal to the CC to have them override us20:06
topyli however).20:06
topylithat's him not me20:07
PiciThat doesn't exactly address the entire issue though.  What if we want to do something that they may not agree with.  Do we have that authority?20:07
tsimpsonon IRC, yes20:07
tsimpsonif they disagree, that can escalate it (if we can't work things out inter-council first)20:08
jussiHowever, there needs to be consultation with them before we do stuff.20:08
rwwor switch to OFTC, was the impression I got20:08
Picis/consultation/notification/ perhaps.20:08
PiciOr somewhere between the two.20:08
jussiPici: to a point...20:08
tsimpsonwe are in a rather interesting position as a council in that we, by definition, need to work with other councils closely and often20:09
jussiI think if we do something that affects groups in large ways, we should be including these groups in the discussion20:09
tsimpsonsometimes our points of view differ, but I don't know of a situation where we could not come to some sort of agreement20:09
PiciI want there to be as much respect between the councils as possible.  I don't think that we should be stepping on each others toes, but I think we all should be respectful of where the lines of authority are drawn.20:10
topyliwe are ultimately responsible. for example, i would love to delegate more of the loco channel policy to the loco council (if they want it), but i also have to be able to say that i can answer to the CC for what happens there. it's tricky20:11
jussitopyli: ++20:12
Picitopyli: agreed20:12
topyliso i think we can't really advance this without first meeting the relevant councils (loco, kubuntu i suppose) and seeing what they want20:14
jussiI think this is good for a discussion on the inter-council list?20:15
PiciI think thats a great idea20:15
rwwThere's an inter-council list? huh.20:15
PiciOnly councilmembers have access to it.20:15
topylijussi: you're the council spokesman, would you like to take the action?20:16
tsimpsonrww: so we can plot the world domination ;)20:16
Picijussi: I'd be willing to help you draft something if you'd like.20:16
topyliwe need smoky chambers!20:16
PiciYou can't fight here! This is the war room!20:16
jussitopyli: I can go as number one on the action, but I have an incredibly busy week ahead, so some help would be good20:16
jussiPici: yes please20:17
PiciThrow me up there then20:17
topyliPici will help20:17
tsimpsonplz 2 action20:17
topyli[ACTION] jussi and Pici to draft proposal for inter-council co-operation to maintain project channels20:17
MootBotACTION received:  jussi and Pici to draft proposal for inter-council co-operation to maintain project channels20:17
topylimeh, i don't know if that's good but we'll get the idea20:18
topyli[topic] Give ubottu editing privileges to all who are operators in a core channel20:18
MootBotNew Topic:  Give ubottu editing privileges to all who are operators in a core channel20:18
topylirww: your item20:18
rwwIt's pretty much self-explanatory. Imho, we need more ubottu editors, because factoid submissions aren't being dealt with. We have a set of people who are entrusted with channel ops permissions, so give it to them ;)20:19
topylii think it's just a technical issue really, bot access is handled separately20:20
topylifor example, i don't have access20:20
tsimpsonI don't think the reason factoid edit requests aren't dealt with has much to do with the number of editors really20:20
rwwI don't think there's a reason it should be, really.20:20
jussitsimpson: +++20:20
tsimpsonit's more that most people either don't see the requests or don't know if it's been done or not20:20
topylirww: there isn't, it just happens to be this way20:20
m4vany bot admin can hand edit privileges20:20
tsimpsonbut that's a slightly different issue to this20:20
m4vand there are several admins20:20
PiciIs not a technical issue.20:20
rwwtsimpson: and if there were more editors, an editor would be more likely to see the requests.20:21
PiciIts an issue of whether this happens during the operator probationary period or after or other.20:21
m4vyeah, I was replying to topyli, a bit latew20:21
tsimpsonrww: but not more likely to act20:21
tsimpsonthere are times where no one is active, and the request is somewhere in the scroll-back20:22
tsimpsoneven if everyone is an editor20:22
jussiTheres  a FR in ubottu for caching of requested factoids, no? m4v have wwe actually put that in writing ofr just talked about it?20:22
rwwMaybe some of the people who are ops and not editors would pay attention to requests if they had access.20:22
m4vjussi: yeah, I tried to implement it in Encyclopedia, but it didn't turn out to be a trivial task20:22
m4vso I continued working in the new plugin20:23
jussim4v: ok, are you planning it for the new encyclopedia?20:23
m4vyes, is in the TODO20:23
rwwI mean, surely I'm not the only one that reads -ops scrollback ...20:23
tsimpsonrww: to make myself clear, I think having more editors is a different issue to just having edit requests dealt with20:23
rwwand I think that a) extending access would help with the problem, and b) that there's no reason I've yet heard of not to20:24
tsimpsonI do think we need to have some way to say "yes, you should have edit rights now"20:24
Picitopyli: +120:24
Picitsimpson: +120:24
Picitopyli: -120:24
jussi[15:58:50] <jussi> m4v: the only isues I have with that are that its not always improvements, despite the best of intentions. Thing is, people consider factoids as "approved/trusted information" so if we have too many editors, it becomes a problem to keep it that way. I think the system we thought of that factoid edit requests get stored and are easily viewable is a much better way than adding millions of editors20:25
jussiI said that to m4v in a different convo, but its relevant20:25
tsimpsonI think edit requests is a different issue to the one we are discussing now, related, but different20:25
PiciI don't think there is a thing as too many editors, as long as they are all trusted.20:25
m4vif there are many requests from one person, and is trustworthy, why don't give him/her rights?20:26
jussitsimpson: is correct, there is no policy and needs to be20:26
topyliwell basically we trust our ops, so there's no real reason for not giving access20:26
PiciIs there a sort on ubottu.com/factoids.cgi that for last changed? That way we can hand out editor access but still easily audit changes.20:26
rwwI don't think adding yet more approval procedure to a team that already has too much when there's a perfectly good set of people who are already trusted is a good idea.20:27
tsimpsonwe should also think about having some kind of style guidelines for factoids, so they are standardized20:27
tsimpson(again, another issue)20:27
Picirww: I don't want it to be an approval procedure, but rather part of the probationary process. Just another thing that we look at while you're still fresh.20:27
jussitsimpson: I suggested that a long time ago, but there was no suggestions on how the style should be...20:27
jussihi nhandler20:28
m4vI don't like a policy where edit privileges are tight regulated..20:28
m4vit should be more like a wiki20:28
tsimpsonjussi: nothing too complex, just a general this is how you style a factoid...20:28
tsimpsonm4v: we tried that long ago, it was wildly abused (somewhat like a wiki ;)20:28
PiciI think we should try to stick the issue at hand, we're getting sidetracked.20:28
rwwand I agree that some sort of submission queue would be an equally-good idea, but that's been in the works for a long, long time. adding more editors is relatively quicker.20:29
m4vtsimpson: well, if an admin hands over rights to somebody that abused the factoid db, the admin isn't qualified.20:29
tsimpsonI think the simplest solution would be to just give our ops edit privileges at the end of probation20:29
topylire: the issue. yes we might as well give factoid access to core channel ops20:29
topylitsimpson: yes after probation20:30
Picitsimpson: I was just thinking about that, but I'm not sure its the best idea.20:30
jussitsimpson: ++20:30
jussiPici: why?20:30
tsimpsonPici: well, simple != best, but I'd rather not complicate things too much, we can always remove edit rights if we see abuse20:30
PiciWorst case: They come out of probation with no idea how to edit a factoid properly.20:30
PiciAnd then we have a bunch of unhelpful factoids to change.20:31
nhandlertsimpson: That was basically what I suggested. I also thought that the ability to grant a slightly-restricted editor privilege where you can only submit corrections in -ops (instead of via PM) so other people could review it might also be helpful20:31
jussiPici: do you have a different idea?20:31
tsimpsonnhandler: that's technically difficult...20:31
jussim4v: how feasible would it be to implement nhandlers suggestion?20:31
tsimpsonm4v: what do you think ^20:31
m4vPici: edit factoids isn't a skill hard to learn...20:31
PiciI think we should encourage them to suggest factoid edits now.  Even though they don't have the rights to add them.20:32
topyliPici: that's a relevant point. we could just tell people to please not edit before they know how20:32
Picim4v: Its not the techincal part that I'm worried about.20:32
rwwGive full factoid editing privs to ops out of probation now, implement correct-in--ops and give it to probationary ops when it's coded?20:32
Picirww: I think thats a good idea.20:33
topylii do see what Pici means. people rely on correct factoids20:33
jussiyes, me also20:33
topylii like that20:33
m4vjussi: I don't see what's the difference than what we have now?20:33
tsimpsonI'm not sure how easy it would be to implement that edit-in-ops thing, I'll have to do some poking around the code20:33
topylithe difference is that not all core ops have access now20:34
Picitsimpson: You should be able to to use the ischannel() function to figure out whether they're talking in a channel or not.20:34
m4vyou mean, you can edit a factoid if the edit is done in -ops?20:34
tsimpsonPici: yeah, but Encyclopedia is convoluted20:34
nhandlerm4v: Yeah, so other ops can review the change20:35
Picitsimpson: I know ;)20:35
nhandlerm4v: The difference between what we have now is that the edit would actually be live, not just proposed20:35
tsimpsonPici: there's also the issue of separating out those who can edit _anywhere_ and those that can only in -ops20:35
m4vthat's what I use with -es factoid bot, but as tsimpson said, Encyclopedia can make it hard to implemetn20:35
Picitsimpson: Yes.20:35
Picim4v: Its not a blocker for this process if its too hard to do.20:36
PiciI think just having our probates (I don't like that word) be okay with suggesting factoids is enough.20:36
PiciAnd encouraged to do so.20:36
m4vif somebody makes enough well made edit suggestions, can get edit privileges?20:37
tsimpsonbut there's nothing anywhere that says that...20:37
nhandlerThat is what we've done for individuals before.20:37
jussis/somebody/an op/?20:37
nhandlertsimpson: Maybe we should document how to get edit privileges20:37
nhandlerjussi: That is the question, should it be 100% restricted to core OPs?20:38
jussior anyone?20:38
PiciNo. Any operator.20:38
tsimpsonm4v: there is no requirement on being an op to edit factoids, that where there was never any link between ops and editors20:38
m4vjussi: well, you have to have an account with ubottu, which is a bit hard to get if you aren't an op20:38
topyliare even all the current editors ops?20:38
tsimpsonif we think you should have an account, we can add one :)20:38
nhandlertopyli: Probably not (I don't think we remove old ops for example)20:38
tsimpsontopyli: most (probably)20:38
PiciI think we did.20:38
PiciBut we still have a fair number of non probationed ops that don't have editor access.20:39
tsimpsonwe can see (who wants a mass ping?)20:39
Picitsimpson: ubottu does, in private.20:39
nhandlerI personally see no reason why any person (ops and non-ops) should not be able to gain the privilege to edit factoids if they demonstrate they know what they are doing and submit many useful/correct ones for review first20:39
m4vtopyli: you can see current editors with @user list --capability editfactoids in a query (i think)20:39
tsimpsonPici: but I wanted to mass ping everyone :(20:39
nhandlerm4v: Yeah, but then we need to compare that to who is currently an operator ;)20:40
tsimpsonm4v: we have the @editors command :)20:40
m4vI understand supybot more than I understand Encyclopedia ;P20:40
PiciI'd be willing to take a look at the code itself.20:41
topyliok, shall we try to get editor rights to all core channel ops after probation?20:41
Picibut I think we should codify what we want exactly first.  Perhaps a vote is in orer?20:41
Piciorder too.20:41
topylijust trying to formulate a proposition to vote on20:41
jussiwhat are we voting on?20:41
Picitopyli: Thats what I mean20:41
topylithat's the question! :)20:41
topyli[vote]  get editor rights to all core channel ops after probation20:42
MootBotPlease vote on:   get editor rights to all core channel ops after probation.20:42
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 MootBot20:42
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting20:42
PiciI say we give it to all non probated ops right now, we live the problems that might bring, if any, for a little bit.20:42
nhandlerHow does the topic of restricting editing to -ops fit into this?20:43
m4vPici: I like that20:43
topylii think my proposal covers current ops20:43
tsimpsonnhandler: if it's doable, we can do it20:43
Picinhandler: That was only for probationed opreators.20:43
Piciopreators. nice.20:43
jussiPici: ++20:43
topylihow do i retreat a voting item? :)20:43
nhandlertopyli: End it and start a new one20:44
tsimpsonjust end the vote20:44
MootBotFinal result is 0 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 020:44
* Pici fail engish, thats unpossible20:44
topyliwho wants to suggest a workable suggestion to vote on? i sort of know what we mean but i'm failing20:45
jussiPici: ?20:46
tsimpsongive all current ops in core channels factoid editing rights?20:46
topylicurrent ops, new ones after probation, in -ops only?20:46
Picijussi: eh/20:47
PiciWhat tsimpson said.20:47
jussiVote: Give all ops in core channels editing rights, with the exception of those on probation.20:47
topyli[vote] Give all ops in core channels editing rights, with the exception of those on probation.20:47
MootBotPlease vote on:  Give all ops in core channels editing rights, with the exception of those on probation..20:47
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 MootBot20:47
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting20:47
MootBot+1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 120:47
topylithank you :)20:47
MootBot+1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 220:48
MootBot+1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 320:48
MootBot+1 received from tsimpson. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 420:48
MootBot+1 received from nhandler. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 520:48
MootBotFinal result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 520:48
m4vwhy don't just give rights to those ops that want it instead of all? (less commands to type)20:48
m4voh i'm slow20:48
topylimaybe we can implement this so that they have to request access20:48
tsimpsonbecause that's messy, and no one has really asked for it20:48
PiciBecause we should be encouraging our ops to suggest factoids.20:48
m4vrww did ask for it20:49
m4v(with this meeting)20:49
PiciNot to say "Oh, I can't add factoids, so I'll be lazy instead"20:49
jussis/suggest/fix and add/20:49
tsimpsonand I think that'd only ask when they need to actually edit something20:49
PiciOr they didn't know they could ask.20:49
tsimpsonm4v: the "really" in there covers that20:49
m4vkk, got it20:49
topyli[topic] Add information on the recent increase of spam and that it should be ignored by users, to the #ubuntu topic20:49
MootBotNew Topic:  Add information on the recent increase of spam and that it should be ignored by users, to the #ubuntu topic20:49
tsimpsonto this, I'd just say "NO!" :)20:50
PiciNobody reads the topic.20:50
tsimpson1st reason ^20:50
topylibilal just /quit, he's not here20:50
rwwAre we still even getting that much spam? It's my impression that the FLoodBot changes have counted it rather effectively.20:50
m4vI read it :(20:50
tsimpsonalso, topics are a limited length, and are already rather full20:50
jussithe topic in #u is full enough all ready...20:50
Picirww: They have.20:50
* m4v is kidding anyway20:50
topylii don't see spam increasing, it's always been like this20:50
PiciThe dynamic +r setting is great.20:51
PiciIts been decreasing in our channel since we got that.20:51
nhandlerI would prefer not to go into much details in our /topic. It is an issue across the network. However, I see no issue in putting a shortened link to http://blog.freenode.net/2010/11/be-safe-out-there/ in there20:51
tsimpsonthere's also the issue that we don't want to be an advertising agency for these trolls20:51
jussitsimpson: ++20:51
tsimpsonthe best way to deal with them (once they are gone) is to ignore that it ever happened20:51
topyliyeah if we do something, i'd go with nhandler's idea20:51
PiciI think we should remind people to use our !feed the troll factoid, and maybe put that sort of link in there.20:51
Pici!feed the troll20:51
ubottuError: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent :)20:51
Pici!feeding the troll20:51
ubottuThe above mess was caused by someone who thought it was funny (they're gone now). Please ignore it completely, since discussing it and making a fuss will only make them think they've reached their "fun" goal.20:51
PiciOr similar.20:52
jussiPici: yes, that sounds sane20:52
nhandlerMy only issue with the factoids is they tend to be rather noisy and give much more attention to the issue that it deserves20:52
jussi!-feeding the troll20:52
ubottufeeding the troll aliases: feedthetroll, don't feed the troll, botattack - added by LjL on 2007-10-17 17:04:2320:52
tsimpsonmaybe someone could make the floodbots do it, as they do for a netsplit?20:52
Picinhandler: Its easier than telling 10 people that they shouldn't join #freenode to get an xmas cloak.20:52
tsimpsonthough, I still think that's a little much20:52
m4vcan floodbots detect trolls?20:53
topylimy issue with factoids is the same that nhandler has with adding to the #ubuntu topic: they grow and become noisy and people start to ignore them20:53
m4vwhy do be have ops then :P20:53
PiciSo education?20:53
tsimpsonm4v: as you well know, bots are never perfect ;)20:53
PiciInstead of factoid spamming?20:53
nhandlerSo were there any objections to having a simple link to that freenode blog post (shortened) in the /topic? It would only add a few characters, and would not require editing for each new type of attack20:54
tsimpsonI don't think it's too much of an issue, most people go back to their support issues quickly after an "attack"20:54
topylinhandler: if it still fits there, no20:54
jussiyeah, if we have room...20:55
rwwThe more you put in /topic, the less people will read it.20:55
topyliyes that's the provlem20:55
tsimpsonlet's make ubottu /msg and /notice people the topic on-join20:56
* tsimpson runs away20:56
nhandlertsimpson: That is what the entrymsg is for20:56
rwwand I don't think this is frequent enough that it needs to be in there :\20:56
tsimpsonnhandler: that wan't a serious suggestion20:56
nhandlerAnd we can easily make room in the /topic by shortening urls and removing the notice that maverick has been released20:56
PiciI don't think so either.20:57
PiciWe said a few minutes ago that this wasn't needed in the topic, what has changed?20:57
topyliwe have so far established that it not needed but it's not harmful either :)20:58
rww"The more you put in /topic, the less people will read it." <-- harmful20:58
topyliwell except for rww's point of huge topics, but we can't fix it20:58
nhandlerrww: That isn't necessarily true either. And like I said, we can shorten the /topic rather easily20:59
tsimpsonthere's also the point that people aren't going to bother reading the topic, clicking on each link and reading each page when they join20:59
tsimpsonmost are there to ask a support question, they just don't care about the topic20:59
rwwnhandler: "we should take some of the stuff out of the existing topic" is a good point regardless of us adding new stuff to it. If someone else doesn't, I'll review it when I'm not at work.20:59
m4vspecially if the urls are in tinyurl form21:00
topylinhandler: if someone shortens all the urls in the topic and adds one more, i won't be against it :)21:00
bittintinyurl form url is nice =)21:00
PiciWhy not use a form that we can actually track how much they're clicked, like, goo.gl or bit.ly?21:00
m4vexcept that you don't know what it is until you click it?21:00
nhandlertinyurl is one of the longer shorteners ;) We can get them even shorter.21:00
jussiis.gd ;)21:00
PiciThat way we can see if people are actually reading through and clicking them?21:01
nhandlerm4v: We have the links labeled as well. 'i.e. release notes: foo.com/bar' is pretty clear21:01
topyliPici: not a bad idea, could be useful information for many purposes21:01
nhandlerv.gd might be useful for that21:01
m4vnhandler: yeah, nevermind me21:02
nhandlerSo I guess we have two things to decidce. First, does anything need to be done at all by us?21:02
PiciWant me to do that?21:02
nhandlerPici: I can do it as well if you want21:03
topyli[vote] add "ignore spam" info to #ubuntu topic21:03
MootBotPlease vote on:  add "ignore spam" info to #ubuntu topic.21:03
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 MootBot21:03
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:03
topyliwe have to go on :)21:03
PiciI'm not sure if statistics on is.gd links can be viewed by everyone, I know goo.gl's can.21:03
nhandlerPici: That is why I suggested v.gd (same people as is.gd)21:04
topylithat's implementation details, let's decide on the issue21:04
Pici+1 (in shortened form)21:04
MootBot+1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 121:04
MootBot+1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 221:04
MootBot+1 received from nhandler. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 321:04
MootBot+1 received from jussi. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 421:04
bittin+1 for shortned form21:04
MootBot+1 received from bittin. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 521:04
MootBotAbstention received from tsimpson. 5 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 521:04
nhandlerbittin: The vote is only for members of the council21:05
MootBotFinal result is 5 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 521:05
bittinnhandler ah :(21:05
nhandlerPici: So did you want the action, or should I take it21:05
Picinhandler: I'll take it.21:05
topylilet's give the action item to bittin21:05
bittini diden't know that how do i get to be a member?21:05
nhandlerbittin: Check out https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/Charter21:05
topylialright Pici, you volunteered first :)21:06
tsimpsonbittin: but being a member doesn't entitle you to vote either, only the IRC Council can vote21:06
PiciYou can state your opinion though :)21:06
topylianything else? i haven't checked bugs to be honest21:06
nhandlertopyli: I don't think there have been any new ones (I am subscribed)21:06
PiciI threw something on there for the offtopic guidelines, but it can wait.21:06
topylioh yes so am i21:06
tsimpsonno new bugs, just the same old same old21:06
nhandlerDid we give that status update on the IRCC nomination process?21:07
topyliPici: oh!21:07
topyliPici: sorry, did i miss it?21:07
topylioh yes21:07
topylido we have time? i do21:07
nhandlerJust a quick status update, the extended period for IRCC nominations ended. The list of nominees has been sent to the CC along with feedback from the current IRCC. We are now waiting on the CC.21:08
topyli[action] pici to fix #ubuntu topic to include advice to ignore spam21:08
MootBotACTION received:  pici to fix #ubuntu topic to include advice to ignore spam21:08
topylijussi, nhandler, tsimpson, do you want to take on Pici's offtopic support item?21:10
tsimpsonif you want21:10
topylior shall we postpone?21:10
jussiIm tired, had a longday, need to sleep.21:10
PiciOkay, we can do this some other time.21:10
nhandlerMaybe bring it up on the ML to try and get some feedback before the next meeting21:10
topylii guess it's not busy21:10
topylinhandler: good idea21:10
Picinhandler: not a bad idea21:11
MootBotMeeting finished at 15:11.21:11
topylithanks all21:11
bittinthanks :)21:11
topylii will do the post-meeting items in the morning, it's late21:11
bittinsorry for i voted :(21:11
nhandlerNo problem bittin21:11
tsimpsondon't worry about it21:11
bittinwill think about it to next meeting,  will attend21:12
bittini will*21:12
topylibittin: it was clear, you didn't cause a revolution :)21:12
bittinthat only #ubuntu ircops is allowed to vote in the Council meeting21:12
bittinif i understand it right21:12
rwwno, just IRC COuncil members21:12
tsimpsonno, only the IRC Council21:12
bittinwill read on it when iam not tired21:13
bittini guess21:13
bittinbookmarked the webpage21:13
=== JanC_ is now known as JanC
=== mhall119_ is now known as mhall119

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