[20:00] <nhandler> #startmeeting
[20:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:00. The chair is nhandler.
[20:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:00] <nhandler> jussi01, Pici, tsimpson, topyli: Could I see a show of hands for who is here?
[20:00] <tsimpson> \o
[20:00] <topyli> o/
[20:00] <akgraner> o/
[20:00] <vendaval> o/
[20:01] <Tm_T> o/
[20:01] <topyli> Pici?
[20:01] <dutchie> anybody here for the Ubuntu manual meeting, we're in #ubuntu-manual
[20:01]  * Pici waves
[20:02] <ikonia> jussi01 said earlier he wasn't going to attend
[20:02] <topyli> that's right
[20:02] <nhandler> [TOPIC] The official policy on #ubuntuforums
[20:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  The official policy on #ubuntuforums
[20:03] <Pici> er, wasn't this already decided?
[20:04] <topyli> Pici, what did we decide? :)
[20:04] <Pici> Can someone link me to the agenda page?
[20:04] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[20:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[20:04] <Pici> ty
[20:04] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[20:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[20:05] <nhandler> The second link has some background info on the agenda topics
[20:06] <Pici> There was aready discussion about #ubuntuforums on the IRCC mailing list with the Forum Council.
[20:07] <topyli> does anyone know how things are going on the channel these days, in practice?
[20:07] <Pici> Its rather inactive.
[20:07] <ikonia> mostly just rambling
[20:08] <ikonia> for example no one has spoke in it today at all
[20:09] <Pici> The FC was fine with us taking control of the operator duties of the channel.  Jdong explained on the mailing list that the channel was for off-topic discussion, but support is on-topic too.
[20:09] <Pici> In fact, that was in October, which seems to be when MenZa made his query on the agenda.
[20:09] <nhandler> The UbuntuIrcCouncil account has +votsriRfa in there, so we also have the necessary flags to do this
[20:09] <topyli> i guess we just need to make sure there are active ops
[20:10] <ikonia> with respect, offtopic = #ubuntu-offtopic support = #ubuntu
[20:10] <ikonia> why is there a channel if it's not for forum disucssion
[20:10] <Pici> Because the FC would like to see keep it around.
[20:10] <ikonia> why though
[20:11] <Tm_K> so let's make it to be forums discussion then?
[20:11] <topyli> not a good rationale for a channel
[20:11] <Tm_K> topyli: true that
[20:11] <ikonia> surly channels have to have a reason beyond "I want it"
[20:11] <ikonia> I can see real value as forum discussion, eg how to take it forward, discussion on issues with the forum
[20:11] <Myrtti> Tm_K: if the forums mods aren't there, and they can't be forced to be there, it can't be anything than unofficial
[20:11] <ikonia> that sort of thing
[20:11] <Pici> ikonia: Thats a slippery slope.
[20:11] <ikonia> Pici: what is ?
[20:12] <Myrtti> Tm_K: and if it's unofficial, it's pretty useless, and could be integrated to -ot
[20:12] <Pici> ikonia: Saying that all channels that don't serve a direct project not exist.
[20:12] <ikonia> Pici: a direct purpose, not project
[20:12] <Pici> er, not project, purpose.
[20:12] <ikonia> I get you
[20:12] <nhandler> Myrtti: Some forum mods are in there. Some forum contributors are there too
[20:13] <ikonia> I just feel there should be a point of a channel beyond I want it
[20:13] <ikonia> I can see real value as a discussion channel for the forum
[20:13] <ikonia> not as a support/offtopic channel though
[20:13] <nhandler> Myrtti: They should not be forced to be there (just like devs aren't forced to be in #ubuntu-devel or #ubuntu-motu)
[20:13] <Tm_K> Myrtti: agree with you
[20:13] <Myrtti> nhandler: some. not all. if they're not all there, the use of it as an official backchannel is somewhat dubious
[20:14] <Pici> The loco channels I'm in are more support/ot discussion than anything loco involved, surely those have the same right to exist as our core channels.
[20:14] <ikonia> Pici: not disupting right to exist, more a case of can we do this better
[20:14] <nhandler> Myrtti: Why? Most Ubuntu teams don't require their members to be in the IRC channel. That doesn't make the channel any more/less official
[20:15] <ikonia> Pici: if there is a channel that serves it's purpose better, why make it harder
[20:15] <nhandler> ikonia: And discussion about the forum would probably be on topic for #ubuntuforums, nobody ever said that it wasn't
[20:15] <Tm_K> I suggest that we promote the channel for forums folks, as I see a purpose for it, just that it should be used for it too
[20:16] <Tm_K> used/used more
[20:16] <ikonia> nhandler: no, but jpds's email said support and offtopic was it's core use really
[20:16] <jpds> wut.
[20:16] <ikonia> jpds: even better you're here now
[20:17] <ikonia> what's the main function of #ubuntuforums ?
[20:17] <Pici> "#ubuntuforums is a cozy, small low-traffic offtopic chatter channel. Most of the people hanging out in the channel have been in the channel for years and there's a pretty well-developed web of friendship within the group."
[20:17] <ikonia> ok, so it's basically a loco channel with no localisation
[20:17] <topyli> seems to me, however, that the issue as presented by menza on our agenda was that the channel deviated from the code of conduct, not its existance
[20:18] <Pici> ikonia: The 'forums' are the project that ties the people together.
[20:18] <ikonia> Pici: yup,
[20:18] <Pici> topyli: Yes.
[20:18] <ikonia> so it's a "group, in the same way of a loco
[20:18] <Pici> topyli: And the IRCC has access there, the access list has been cleaned up to remove people who are no longer forums admins.  I am always in the channel as well.
[20:19] <Pici> Its on my 'main list' of channels that I look at in irssi as well.
[20:19] <topyli> Pici, ok, so can we close the issue?
[20:19] <ikonia> seems it's all sorted and fine then
[20:19] <Pici> topyli: yes.
[20:19] <nhandler> Great
[20:19] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v
[20:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v
[20:19] <nhandler> Pricey: Daviey: You guys around?
[20:20] <nhandler> This topic got discussed at our last meeting
[20:20] <Pici> yes, and I don't think that the discussion on the mailing list has finished, even though it has calmed down a bit.
[20:21] <ikonia> it's getting a little more productive and constructive from my reading
[20:21] <Tm_K> I haven't had much chance to participate the ML discussion yet
[20:21] <nhandler> Do you think holding off a little longer and letting the discussion would be beneficial?
[20:22] <Tm_K> nhandler: yes
[20:22] <Pici> Yes from me as well.
[20:22] <tsimpson> I think so too
[20:22] <topyli> ok, let's give it time since it's not urgent
[20:22] <Myrtti> I'm still trying to craft a constructive, non-trolling message to the thread
[20:22] <nhandler> I think it might also be a good idea to try and pull the various ideas along with their pros/cons from the ML and put them on the wiki so that they are easy to pick out of the long thread
[20:22] <tsimpson> consider this a call for more comments
[20:23] <tsimpson> and discussion of the pros/cons of the ideas would be nice on the ML
[20:23] <Pici> nhandler: Thats a good idea.  So we aren't constantly milling over the same things.
[20:23] <Tm_K> nhandler: +1
[20:23] <topyli> i have yet to see new ideas come up, apart from what appeared in the first day or two. however, i'm willing to wait
[20:24] <Tm_K> that's what we used with -women
[20:24] <nhandler> Is someone willing to volunteer to create the wiki page?
[20:25] <tsimpson> silence...
[20:25] <Flannel> Sure
[20:25] <nhandler> [AGREED] Allow mailing list discussion to continue until next meeting.
[20:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Allow mailing list discussion to continue until next meeting.
[20:25] <tsimpson> oh, I was just about to volunteer too :)
[20:25] <nhandler> [AGREED] Create wiki page with suggestions and their pros/cons
[20:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Create wiki page with suggestions and their pros/cons
[20:25] <nhandler> Flannel: Thanks
[20:25] <Flannel> tsimpson: We can do it together!
[20:25] <tsimpson> sure :)
[20:25] <nhandler> :)
[20:25] <topyli> awww, community :)
[20:25] <Tm_K> Flannel: tsimpson: thanks
[20:25] <nhandler> [ACTION] Flannel and tsimpson to create wiki page documenting the suggestions and their pros/cons
[20:25] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Flannel and tsimpson to create wiki page documenting the suggestions and their pros/cons
[20:26] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Closure of the #ubuntu-helpteam channel
[20:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Closure of the #ubuntu-helpteam channel
[20:26] <Daviey> nhandler: \o
[20:27] <topyli> this channel apparently was not a great success?
[20:27] <nhandler> Daviey: Read up. We were discussing the #ubuntu-ops policies topic
[20:27] <topyli> referring to -helpteam, not this one :)
[20:27] <Tm_K> topyli: haven't seen much activity there yet
[20:28] <Tm_K> but then again, that doesn't mean it cannot be good addition in the long run
[20:28] <nhandler> The ML has one message from this month, and the next most recent message is from August 2008
[20:28] <Pici> Are we talking about #ubuntu-irc-helpers or is there a differnt helpteam channel?
[20:28] <nhandler> Pici: This is #ubuntu-helpteam (a different team)
[20:28] <Pici> I'm the only person there.
[20:29] <nhandler> It looks like the team is dead. Their last meeting was March 08 2008
[20:29] <topyli> i say close it
[20:29] <Pici> Agreed.  If its still needed, then we can re-open it.
[20:30] <nhandler> I can contact coolbhavi (the founder) about that
[20:30] <Pici> Okay, sounds good to me.
[20:30] <nhandler> tsimpson: You ok with this?
[20:30] <tsimpson> yes
[20:30] <nhandler> [AGREED] Close #ubuntu-helpteam
[20:30] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Close #ubuntu-helpteam
[20:31] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to contact coolbhavi about closing #ubuntu-helpteam
[20:31] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to contact coolbhavi about closing #ubuntu-helpteam
[20:31] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Discuss what our "official procedure" for ban removal is, should ops remove other ops bans etc
[20:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss what our "official procedure" for ban removal is, should ops remove other ops bans etc
[20:31] <nhandler> tsimpson: You are up
[20:31] <tsimpson> the basic issue here is this, should ops remove other ops bans?
[20:32] <tsimpson> I think, unless stated in the BT, we should be able to
[20:32] <Tm_K> tsimpson: agreed on that, especially if it's clear case
[20:32] <topyli> i agree completely
[20:32] <tsimpson> this would reduce the number of times we say "come back when ... is here"
[20:32] <nhandler> I agree tsimpson. If the OP who set the ban is around, I think they should make the decision about whether to remove the ban. If not, I have no issue with another op from that channel talking to the user and removing the ban if appropriate
[20:32] <nhandler> However, a PM to the OP who set the ban from the OP removing it would also be nice
[20:32] <Pici> nhandler: Agreed.
[20:33] <topyli> yes
[20:33] <tsimpson> yes, if the op who set the ban is there, they should take the lead. if not, other ops can step in
[20:33] <Flannel> When I ban someone, I'm doing something that anyone else would do if they were me.  I have no "ownership" of that ban, I just happened to be watching at the right time.
[20:33] <Pici> I think this will encourage people to comment more on bans.
[20:33] <Flannel> If that's not the case, and there's further knowledge required, I am sure to comment on the BT.
[20:33] <Tm_K> Flannel: that's how it goes typically
[20:33] <nhandler> However, if an OP really doesn't know much about the user being discussed, I think it would still be beneficial to defer to the OP who set the ban.
[20:33] <Tm_K> and yeah, commenting++
[20:33] <Flannel> Tm_K: Unfortunately, that's not the policy many of the ops take, and people are forced to catch 'their' op
[20:34] <nhandler> But commenting will definitely help with that
[20:34] <tsimpson> we seem have this "unwritten policy" that we don't touch others bans, I think this needs to change
[20:34] <topyli> tsimpson, yes that's the issue and i agree
[20:34] <nhandler> Is there anyone who thinks only the OP who set the ban should remove it?
[20:35] <Pici> *tumbleweed*
[20:35] <Myrtti> is there anyone who thinks anyone of the ops should remove it, without discussing it with the original banner?
[20:35] <Flannel> Myrtti: Yes.
[20:35] <Myrtti> Flannel: in *any* and *all* cases?
[20:35] <Flannel> In general, I don't think there's any reason for someone to be notified
[20:35] <Flannel> Myrtti: There are *always* corner cases
[20:36] <tsimpson> Myrtti: this is for when the original banner is _not_ there
[20:36] <Flannel> Myrtti: If you set a ban and think you should be the one to deal with it, for whatever reason, comment on the BT
[20:36] <Pici> Myrtti: Unless the operator doesn't feel comfortable about removing it, or theres a note on the BT about the incident.
[20:36] <topyli> Myrtti, thinking is allowed, whatever the policy. we can't write everything down
[20:36] <nhandler> Flannel: A PM to the OP who set the ban is always nice.
[20:36] <Tm_K> "In doubt, discuss" is good rule in this, as usual
[20:36] <Flannel> nhandler: The only reason I see for that is to notify that they wouldn't be evading later.
[20:36] <Myrtti> Flannel: - so you do make an exception to cases where there is a note in the bt. thank you. I was trying to polarize so you'd articulate the opinion clearly
[20:37] <Flannel> Myrtti: I remarked about BT comments in my original statement.
[20:37] <Flannel> Myrtti: The issue is the "default" status right now is "if I didn't ban, I won't remove"
[20:38] <Myrtti> it's not my default status
[20:38] <Myrtti> but oh well, move on
[20:38] <nhandler> So it sounds like we are in agreement that any OP from the channel should be able to remove the ban, even if they did not set it
[20:38] <topyli> Myrtti is ahead of her time! so can we decide?
[20:38] <tsimpson> Myrtti: that's the problem with "unwritten policy"
[20:38] <topyli> right
[20:38] <Tm_K> I think we have concensus on this
[20:38] <Myrtti> this is somewhat linked to the last item of the agenda
[20:38] <tsimpson> which is why I want to make it official policy
[20:38] <Flannel> nhandler: commenting will also help with bans that the BT doesn't have adequate backlog about (either the ban was old, or theres some other reason that the log in the BT doesn't have info regarding the ban)
[20:39] <Myrtti> about those cases that actually *DO* have notes in the BT "do not remove without consultation"
[20:39] <Tm_K> as long as there's no set/remove wars (:)
[20:39] <tsimpson> then we trust the original op has good reasons for saying that and leave it
[20:39] <nhandler> Yes, comments in the BT will definitely help.
[20:39] <Myrtti> and there are some that are known by the old ops folklore that might not have it
[20:40] <tsimpson> old bans can be commented on as easily as new ones
[20:40] <tsimpson> but, experience is something you get over time
[20:40] <Pici> If this is decided, I think we should send an email on the mailing list about it, not everyone is present here and/or keeps up on what was decided at these meetings.
[20:40] <nhandler> And a PM to the OP who set the ban will also help catch mistakes (a user being unbanned when they shouldn't be due to a missing comment or something)
[20:40] <Tm_K> Pici: yes, + wiki
[20:40] <nhandler> Pici: +1. A bullet on the OP wiki page might also be nice (not sure if anything else there will need to be updated)
[20:40] <tsimpson> the op guidelines would be a good place to note it too
[20:41] <topyli> belongs to the operator guidelines wiki page
[20:41] <nhandler> [AGREED] OPs can remove bans set by other OPs
[20:41] <MootBot> AGREED received:  OPs can remove bans set by other OPs
[20:41] <nhandler> Anyone want to volunteer to do the email/wiki updates?
[20:41] <Pici> Shall I write up something for the mailing list?
[20:41] <nhandler> Pici: If you want. Do you want to update the wiki too?
[20:42] <Tm_K> ...we should recommend all ops to subscribe to operator guidelines wikipage
[20:42] <Pici> nhandler: not particularly ;)
[20:42] <nhandler> I can update the wiki
[20:42] <tsimpson> Tm_K: we could put that on the guidelines... oh wait ;P
[20:42] <topyli> heh. i can do the wi... never mind :)
[20:42] <nhandler> [ACTION] Pici to send email to mailing list about this change
[20:42] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Pici to send email to mailing list about this change
[20:42] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to update the relevant wiki pages
[20:42] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to update the relevant wiki pages
[20:43] <Tm_K> tsimpson: everytime someone asks and says he didn't know there's something new, let's slap with the subscription
[20:43] <nhandler> jussi01 said we should skip his cloak topic for now
[20:43] <nhandler> Tm_K: Recommending is fine imo, requiring would not be.
[20:43] <Tm_K> nhandler: even if we all would say yes for it? ):
[20:43] <topyli> his item, let
[20:44] <Tm_K> nhandler: true that
[20:44] <topyli> s postpone
[20:44] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave
[20:44] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave
[20:44] <tsimpson> I'm requesting we move my next topic to the ML, it's not exactly something we can vote and take action on
[20:44] <nhandler> I have no issue with that
[20:44] <topyli> agreed
[20:44] <Tm_K> tsimpson: +1
[20:44] <tsimpson> I'll write up an email explaining what exactly it's about and we can bring it up at another meeting
[20:44] <Pici> Fine with me.
[20:44] <nhandler> [AGREED] Move discussion on general attitude for -ops to the ML
[20:44] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Move discussion on general attitude for -ops to the ML
[20:45] <Tm_K> ...and to comment it, we should show the _good_ example (:
[20:45] <nhandler> [ACTION] tsimpson to start discussion about 0ops attitude and behavior on the mailing list
[20:45] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to start discussion about 0ops attitude and behavior on the mailing list
[20:45] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Request to add #ubuntu-women to core channels
[20:45] <MootBot> New Topic:  Request to add #ubuntu-women to core channels
[20:45] <nhandler> pleia2: You there?
[20:45] <Tm_K> nhandler: haven't answered my pings
[20:46] <nhandler> She has been idle for ~6 hours. akgraner says she can represent Ubuntu Women for this topic
[20:46] <akgraner> hi all.. so with all the discussion in and around UW and irc channels lately we had a few questions
[20:47] <akgraner> how does a project become a core IRC channel?
[20:47]  * persia has a question regarding "OPs can remove bans set by other OPs" and would like to discuss it when the topic is again free (sorry for missing that topic)
[20:47] <akgraner> what would be the benefit to UW being a core irc channel from the IRCC persecutive?
[20:48] <akgraner> I looked on the wiki's but could not find the guidelines to what it takes for a project to be defined as a core channel - did I miss it?
[20:48] <nhandler> I personally don't think the Ubuntu Women channel should be a core channel. It is a team channel, and I think it should remain that way
[20:49] <nhandler> We don't really add teams as core channels
[20:49] <Tm_K> akgraner: I would see one benefit in that directly: closer collaboration with core ops when dealing with misbehaviour/trolls and alike
[20:50] <Tm_K> ...but that collaboration and closer cooperation can be achieved without this core status
[20:50] <tsimpson> the main difference between a core and non-core channel is that the IRC Guidelines must be enforced on all core channels, and core ops will have access in core channels
[20:50] <tsimpson> also, ops in core channels would be expected to idle in -ops
[20:50] <persia> tsimpson: Don't core ops have access in team channels?  At least I believe that to be true for my team channels.
[20:51] <Tm_K> persia: you mean IRCC ?
[20:51] <akgraner> I asked the question - when does a project become core? and no one could point me to the answer anywhere
[20:51] <persia> Tm_K: I'm not sure.  I set some flag when I set up the channel.
[20:51] <tsimpson> core-ops is a slightly new term
[20:52] <tsimpson> there will be a set of operators who are known as "core ops", they will have access in all core channels in addition to channel operators
[20:52] <topyli> akgraner, i'm trying to think, but i can't answer that. core channels are ubuntu, kubuntu, xubuntu, ubuntustudio channels. not teams
[20:52] <nhandler> persia: It is recommended that teams add UbuntuIrcCouncil with +votiA to the access list of channels in the Ubuntu namespace, but this isn't actively enforced afaik
[20:52] <persia> Ah, I see the distinction.  Sorry for not keeping up with the new team.
[20:52]  * persia retracts
[20:52] <tsimpson> the IRCC would, in effect, be a member of the core ops team, but there will be others
[20:52] <Tm_K> akgraner: there's no procedure, I think
[20:53] <tsimpson> persia: it's quite a new thing, so I'm not surprised you haven't heard much about it yet
[20:53] <nhandler> The list of core channels can be found on the wiki
[20:53] <Tm_K> but should this be decided by IRCC ?
[20:53] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope
[20:53] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope
[20:53] <czajkowski> nhandler: with your comment there, is that the same for LoCo teams ?
[20:53] <Tm_K> I mean becoming core channel
[20:53] <tsimpson> Tm_K: I think that's a good idea
[20:53] <akgraner> I guess that is what we were looking for.. how and when does a project become vital
[20:53] <Tm_K> so basicly contacting IRCC
[20:53] <tsimpson> if we are going to have core channels, we should describe exactly what and why core channels are core channels
[20:53] <akgraner> enough to the project to become core
[20:54] <ikonia> would it not be better for #ubuntu-women to find it's feet first
[20:54] <ikonia> it's had a lot of changes recently
[20:54] <nhandler> czajkowski: Yes, it is to allow the IRCC to intervene if a serious issue comes up and no OPs can be contacted
[20:54] <tsimpson> at the moment, only the main support channels, their respective offtopic channels, and -devel land are core
[20:54] <topyli> i wonder if we have authority to decide on our own scope
[20:54] <ikonia> once the project has scope decide
[20:54] <nhandler> akgraner: What would Ubuntu Women hope to gain by becoming a core channel?
[20:56] <akgraner> nhandler, we were discussing IRC purposes and then the question of core channels and the importance of the project in the big Ubuntu picture
[20:56] <akgraner> and went looking for those definitions
[20:56] <czajkowski> nhandler: I assume also as we're now creating 2 channels one core channel for the project and one not
[20:56] <nhandler> akgraner: Being a core channel has nothing to do with the team's importance. For instance, the doc team is important in the Ubuntu community, but #ubuntu-doc is not a core channel
[20:56] <Pici> nhandler: Jussi and I originally spoke about adding -women as a core channel because its a decently active channel with a large population and was having a lot of issues.
[20:57] <tsimpson> the only real difference between a core and non-core channel is that the IRCC is directly responsible for the channel, the core-ops will have +o there, and the ops will idle in -ops
[20:58] <Tm_K> tsimpson: could that be achieved without being -core channel?
[20:58] <czajkowski> tsimpson: well our core ops are already in -ops...
[20:58] <Tm_K> czajkowski: not all, though
[20:58] <czajkowski> Tm_K: a lot
[20:59] <tsimpson> if it becomes core, all ops would need to idle there
[20:59] <Pici> Decisions about idle policy in -ops notwithstanding.
[20:59] <akgraner> Those were my questions concerning UW and core IRC channels.. I think some of it was OBE after the decision was made on having 2 channels
[20:59] <Pici> OBE?
[20:59] <tsimpson> Pici: ops are not effected by the no-idle policy
[21:00] <akgraner> overcome by events
[21:00] <Tm_K> tsimpson: which ops? any channel? official ubuntu channel?
[21:00] <tsimpson> Tm_K: operators in core channels
[21:00] <Pici> tsimpson: Yes, but if u-w doesnt become a core channel, then those ops are free to idle in -ops if they want,  depending on what our other decision is.
[21:00] <tsimpson> Tm_K: "The operators of the above channels are expected to idle in #ubuntu-ops and are voiced in this channel"
[21:01] <akgraner> will there be any "offical" documentation about what makes a core-irc team and the criteria needed before one can be added to the list?
[21:01] <tsimpson> Pici: sure, but I was saying if it becomes core, all of their ops should idle there
[21:01] <persia> I'd like to see a much clearer outline of structure and expectations.  Watching this discussion, I'm suddenly unsure if I'm in compliance as an op, and find that I am much less able to have an opinion on whether a given channel is, or should be, core.
[21:01] <akgraner> channel not team
[21:01] <Tm_K> tsimpson: yes, I asked so who were not familiar with that, are now
[21:01] <tsimpson> akgraner: there is not now, but I think we do need to create that
[21:02] <tsimpson> at the moment there seems to be no definition of why a core channel is core, we should create that definition
[21:02] <Pici> tsimpson: +1
[21:02] <nhandler> persia: Currently, OPs in the channels listed in the first list of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope are expected to idle in #ubuntu-ops. Ops in #kubuntu-devel, #ubuntu-devel, or #ubuntu-motu are able to idle in -ops, but not required to
[21:03] <nhandler> tsimpson: Agreed
[21:03] <persia> nhandler: Right, but I think I agree with tsimpson here.
[21:03] <akgraner> that would be great to have that defined
[21:04] <nhandler> tsimpson: Would you like to start that discussion so we can try and get it definied by the next meeting?
[21:04] <Tm_K> tsimpson: +1
[21:04] <Pici> Lets have us (IRCC) discuss about what makes a core channel a core channel and then we can revisit this next time.
[21:04] <akgraner> thanks you all...
[21:04] <topyli> akgraner, i'm confused about the motivation. why exactly are we making -women a core channel?
[21:05] <Tm_K> Pici: if that is ok to CC, that is?
[21:05] <nhandler> Pici: +1
[21:05] <akgraner> topyli, it was asked why we can't be? and I could not point to any reason why were couldn't be?  and if it was a core channel it would be subject to the rules of other core channels
[21:05] <nhandler> topyli: You ok with Pici's suggestion?
[21:06] <topyli> nhandler, oh yes
[21:06] <akgraner> and we were trying to get the answer, before suggesting it on the mailing list
[21:06] <tsimpson> we can't really answer if -women should be core without having defined what make a channel core
[21:06] <Pici> Aye.
[21:06] <nhandler> [AGREED] IRCC to discuss what makes a core channel a core channel and we will revisit this next meeting
[21:06] <MootBot> AGREED received:  IRCC to discuss what makes a core channel a core channel and we will revisit this next meeting
[21:06] <topyli> good
[21:06] <nhandler> akgraner: There is nothing stopping you from enforcing the Ubuntu IRC guidelines in the channel
[21:07] <Myrtti> as you already have, AFAIK
[21:07] <Myrtti> (and are)
[21:07] <akgraner> nhandler, nope there isn't  - but when people asked about if it could be
[21:07] <akgraner> I needed a better answer than - we just aren't
[21:07] <Tm_K> nhandler: I think we should add the idle exception in -ops to -women ops too
[21:07] <czajkowski> nhandler: you'd be susprised how many people want to see it written somewhere first.
[21:08] <Myrtti> Tm_K: there is no exception currently
[21:08] <nhandler> czajkowski: Then write in on your wiki or /topic that the Ubuntu IRC Guidelines are enforced in this channel
[21:08] <nhandler> persia: Want to ask your question now?
[21:08] <Tm_K> Myrtti: then remove the "too" ? (:
[21:08] <Pici> nhandler: It already is.
[21:09] <topyli> Tm_K, i would prefer not to have exceptions, but instead make the channel core
[21:09] <akgraner> and if we as a project were asking  - then we wanted some guidance on it
[21:09] <persia> nhandler: Sure.  About the ops removing other ops bans.  I'm responsible for maintaining a specific long-term ban with complicated removal requirements: how can I ensure this isn't removed by someone else if the requirements have yet to be met?
[21:09] <Flannel> persia: Comment on the bantracker
[21:09] <persia> This is perhaps a different situation than most bans, but I'd like policy to cover it :)
[21:10] <persia> Flannel: That's done.  If that's sufficient, then I'm happy with the prior [AGREED]
[21:10] <persia> Thanks for letting me ask the question after the topic concluded :)
[21:10] <tsimpson> well I think that's it for this meeting
[21:10] <nhandler> persia: If there is a comment on the BT explaining the situation and why it should not be removed by someone else, you should be fine
[21:10] <Flannel> persia: We're not robots, so proper commenting will work just fine
[21:11] <persia> I'll double check, but that works for me.
[21:11] <nhandler> tsimpson: Agreed.
[21:11] <nhandler> Thanks for coming everyone
[21:11] <topyli> nhandler, thanks for sacrificing yourself to chair
[21:11] <tsimpson> the next meeting is on the 28th at 18:00 UTC (unless my math is flawed)
[21:11] <akgraner> thanks everyone..
[21:11] <nhandler> Does someone want to volunteer to take care of the team report page, updating the date on the wiki, updating MeetingLogs/IRCC and sending the minutes to ubuntu-irc@ ?
[21:12] <nhandler> tsimpson: That is correct
[21:12] <ikonia> have we run out of time ?
[21:12] <ikonia> errrr why is that it ?
[21:12] <nhandler> ikonia: We have been going for over an hour. I also have to go and take care of some stuff.
[21:12] <ikonia> so we have run out of time
[21:12] <nhandler> We will get to the rest of the agenda at the next meeting
[21:12] <topyli> nhandler, can  do as long my logs are working
[21:13] <Pici> ikonia:
[21:13] <nhandler> topyli: logs will be up on irclogs.ubuntu.com
[21:13] <Pici> ER.
[21:13] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to take care of the team report page, updating the date on the wiki, updating MeetingLogs/IRCC and sending the minutes to  ubuntu-irc@ ?
[21:13] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to take care of the team report page, updating the date on the wiki, updating MeetingLogs/IRCC and sending the minutes to  ubuntu-irc@ ?
[21:13] <topyli> nhandler, there goes my excuse :\
[21:13] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[21:13] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:13.
[21:13] <Pici> They'll be wherever mootbot puts them too
[21:15] <Tm_K> thanks you all
[21:15] <Tm_K> -s ):