=== nikolam_ is now known as nikolam
=== noy_ is now known as noy
=== wet-chan is now known as wet
=== wet-chan is now known as wet
=== leoquant is now known as soonerorlater
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
jussi01topyli: Pici nhandler_ ping!18:02
jussi01ooh, we have quorum!18:02
jussi01shall we wait a moment?18:02
topylia Pici appears! :)18:03
topyliperhaps we can afford a few minutes18:03
MootBotMeeting started at 12:03. The chair is jussi01.18:03
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]18:03
jussi01[Topic] Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v18:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v18:04
jussi01So then, I think the discussion has been done on the ML, any further thoughts from people?18:04
jussi01Pricey: Daviey around?18:04
IdleOneafternoon/evening all18:04
jussi01hi IdleOne18:04
PiciI'd like to restate that I'd be willing to try out alowing idlers again.18:05
Garyevening all18:05
jussi01heya Gary18:05
jussi01My thought is Id like to see the introduction of a mirror channel, allowing greater transparency but not interuption.18:06
Tm_TI'd say the idlers with reasonable reason is allowed, people who we know18:06
GaryTm_T: thats just was I was trying to verbalise18:07
jussi01Tm_T: that becomes to "we like you, so you can hang around"18:07
LjLjussi01: how's that different from +mz, +o to ops?18:07
Tm_Tjussi01: itdoesn't have to18:07
IdleOneMy two cents are, allowing idlers but I would be fine with a mirror channel18:07
topylii could accept a mirror channel, or moderated idlers. the former seems less work. i'm not sure "selected idlers" would work very well18:07
PiciThe mirror channel idea makes operators appear even more elitist imo18:07
jussi01Pici: how so?18:08
Tm_TI don't see how mirror channel differs from public logs18:08
LjLPici: i agree, it seems convoluted for the sake of being so18:08
jussi01Tm_T: its instant18:08
Davieyjussi01: \o18:08
Tm_Tjussi01: and we have good reason not to have instant logs, or atleast did18:08
jussi01hiya Daviey18:08
Picijussi01: It puts us up on a pedistal, you can see us, but you're not allowed to interact.18:08
LjLjussi01: well, *not* being instant was actually seen as a plus at the time, considering that -ops was used by attackers to know what ops were doing in real time.18:08
LjLmaybe things have changed.18:08
Tm_Twhat LjL said18:09
Davieyhey jussi01, nothing has changed in my opinion of have a trial of allowing idlers.18:09
jussi01Pici: I guess Ive mistated - the ops would idle in the mirror channel also.18:09
topyliLjL, they have not18:09
jussi01so you would have a channel for sorting issues and another channel which the ops reside, but not for dispute resolution18:09
LjLseems very similar to #ubuntu-ops vs #ubuntu-irc, though not identical18:10
Tm_T...why we don't use -irc for the "ops reside" thing?18:10
LjL#ubuntu-irc is free to join, and ops are usually there18:10
jussi01it could be as simple as mirroring -ops to -irc18:10
jussi01allowing everyone to see whats going on, even interact with the ops if need be, but not allowing everyong to just jump in and give their 2c, troll or whatever else.18:11
Tm_Tit can be tested, but I don't see much of benefit from it myself (:18:12
guntbert_my 2 ct: requiring ops to idle/talk in another channel would  increase stress on the ops18:12
LjLjussi01: again though... if (and it's a big if, i'm not siding) you want this kind of thing to be possible, isn't it technically simpler to just have ops +o, the channel +mz, and voice the person who's joining for appeals?18:12
jussi01LjL: not really, that adds work to the ops load. a mirror bot is very simple.18:13
LjLpoor ops :)18:13
PiciI think that we should do the following: Trial allowing idlers in #ubuntu-ops.  If that doesn't work out, we move to the mirror channel idea.  If that doesn't work we fall back to what we're doing now and whomever wants to can say "I told you so."18:13
jussi01I think there might even be a supybot plugin for it18:13
jussi01Pici: I strongly disagree. I think allowing idlers in -ops is a recipe for trouble.18:14
* Daviey fails to understand why a time limited experiment can't be tested.18:15
Tm_Tok, so who are the people who complains -ops being no-idling?18:15
topyliif we let idlers in and remove them after, say, a month again, there'll be hell to pay18:15
LjLi can say that #gentoo-ops seemed to work fine while i was there while allowing idlers18:15
Tm_TDaviey: so, you think anyone should be allowed to idle there?18:15
Davieytopyli: Not if policy makes it clear it's a time limited experiment. IMO18:15
DavieyTm_T: I think it's worthy of an experiment, yes18:16
Tm_TDaviey: even persistent trolls?18:16
PiciI'm willing to try it out.18:16
topyliTm_T, well, trolls aren't allowed anywhere :)18:16
DavieyTm_T: if they cause problems in the channel, like any other channel, it needs to be dealt with.18:16
Tm_TDaviey: hmm, so if they behave in -ops, it's ok? roger18:17
DavieyTm_T: makes sense to me.18:17
Tm_Tthanks for clearing it18:17
DavieyI'm not stating it WILL work, but it's something i think should be tested.18:17
PiciDaviey: exactly what I'm thinking.18:17
Tm_Thow we measure success/failure?18:18
PiciIf only just so I can tell people that we've tried it.18:18
GaryTm_T: if we revert back to no idleing after two days, it's failed18:18
jussi01but we HAVE tried it! it DIDNT work then, why would it work now?18:18
DavieyTm_T: following the time limited experiement, it's reviewed in a meeting like this - allowing people to raise concerns, and how they felt about it.18:18
Picijussi01: When did we try it?18:19
Davieyif it's a resounding failure, then the issue is resolved.. otherwise consider a longer term plan.18:19
LjLPici: before the current policy was instated, i guess :P18:19
jussi01Pici: when -ops was first started it was open.18:19
topylii also seem to remember that the no-idle policy was implemented at some point for some reason :)18:19
Picijussi01: That was a very long time ago.18:19
Tm_TDaviey: and it's up to ops to say it's success/failure or "all" ?18:19
* jussi01 has quite clear memories of that time18:19
DavieyTm_T: I would suggest everyone can raise their opinions18:20
Tm_Tjussi01: I'm too old to remember that far18:20
IdleOnejussi01: that was also when the community was a lot smaller and there were less "good" users18:20
PiciFor the record, I don't think it will work out, but I'18:20
* Mamarok is strongly against idling, it's a hell to sort out who is in for what reason18:20
Picim willing to give it a shot just to say that we tried.18:20
Tm_TDaviey: but who's opinion counts, who has final say?18:20
Tm_TMamarok: agreed18:20
Mamarokand there are logs, so there is no idling needed18:20
Mamarokfor those who want to have a look at how we work18:21
DavieyTm_T: I would suggest it's the IRCC's vote, based on what they have heard in the meeting.18:21
Tm_TDaviey: roger, that's clear enough (:18:21
Mamarokthere very rare moments when we forgot about an idler it usually ended up in them interfering in other cases and adding a lot of nise, maing work almost impossible without removing them18:21
topylii sure don't want to confer in -meeting (twice?) about whether or not we're enjoying the idlers18:22
DavieyI'm not sure "enjoying" is a term that is related to the issue topyli.18:22
topyliDaviey, we should be noticing some benefits, improvements in our work, or similar18:23
PiciMamarok: I agree.  But I don't think that anyone else besides the operators sees that. And if we need to do a trial to prove that to others, than so be it.18:23
MamarokPici: I shudder at that trial already18:23
Tm_TPici: yeah, I don't like the fact we need to prove it to others, but if that's what is needed...18:24
Mamarokalso, as jussi01 pointed out, it has been tried and it doidn't work18:24
mc44It did work18:24
LjLmc44 <318:24
PiciIt did work.18:24
Mamarokaren't there logs available when that was tried last time?18:24
Davieyit wasn't really "tried", it just happend.18:24
mc44It was stopped because of paranoia18:24
DavieyIt's how -ops was concieved18:24
mc44Not because of any actual problems18:25
Tm_Tmc44: hmm, like to elaborate?18:25
PiciAllowing idlers was how I got to know the op team before I was asked to become an op myself.18:25
mc44Tm_T: someone thought someone running a botnet was idling in the channel or something. Turns out they weren't.18:25
DavieyThe no-ideler policy suddenly appeard without any discussion ISTR.  It was sporadically enforced, which caused more confusion.18:25
Tm_Tjussi01: slap me when I'm taking too much time in one issue, btw18:26
* vish would also like to mention in the meeting that the policy of no idling in -ops seems a bit hostile :( I'm sometimes really frightened to even enter.18:26
GaryPici: and it'd be how we/they get to know each other in the future I'm sure18:26
=== nizarus_ is now known as nizarus
Tm_Tmc44: single occasion and then decided?18:26
LjLvish: isn't that perhaps more due to how people actually entering -ops are treated?18:26
mc44Tm_T: then someone put it in the topic, and it became decided like that story with the monkeys and the hose :p18:27
jussi01But the benefits you are highlighting will be acheived with mirroring into -irc, and having the ops idle there, no?18:27
Tm_Tvish: true, but it doesn't need to be frightening experience, we should handle it better18:27
vishLjL: yes , i believe it is more due to the rules that are in place , that forces the ops to keep asking "Is there  anything more you want to mention?"18:27
Tm_Tjussi01: yes, I think so18:27
LjLmc44: hm no i think that time it was a bit more carefully decided than that (although it might still have been paranoia)18:27
Tm_Tmc44: I don't remember it being that simple decision, though I don't remember much (:18:28
LjLvish: fair enough, although one has to consider that any given op isn't *forced* to say that or send people away18:28
LjLunless they interpret the policy that way18:28
mc44jussi01: Why would you do that? It's just silly and unnecessary and overcomplicated and reflects badly on you and your ability to have calm, reasonable channel18:28
PiciIt happened after I became an op, but before I knew what was going on (so I don't really remember why)18:28
PiciSo... Whats next?18:29
GaryI don't like the idea of mirroring, it seems (imho) overkill and messy18:29
PiciWe've spent a half an hour talking about this.18:29
topyliare we going to defer this to another meeting or decide something in this one?18:29
topyliPici, thank you18:29
mc44just keep delaying it, that should solve the problem :)18:29
Tm_TI really wish we could just get _our_ attitudes and output more friendly and keep the policy & all as they are18:30
Tm_Tmost if not all these problems can be fixed by kind behaviour, I think18:30
vishLjL: Tm_T: asking an member , "is there anything more?" in just a few minutes after the conversation finished is just a polite way of saying "get out" ;)  .. maybe its my personal interest , but i would like to be an op some day , and it would probably help me to learn from idling there18:30
Garybeing ubuntu, we should be able to be more open, friendly etc, try to talk trolls into submition/giving up hope18:30
Tm_Tvish: that's why I would like to see ops talking in -irc too18:31
LjLvish: my point is that i don't see the policy as *forcing* ops to ask "is there anything more?". they could just avoid asking if the person isn't causing any trouble.18:31
jussi01vish: but if the channel was mirrored to -irc, why could you not idle there and earn?18:31
topyliapart from the historical musings, we have two suggestions. jussi01's mirroring suggestion, and Pici's experiment18:31
PiciWhats to lose doing the experiment? Sure, we get some stress, but that already happens. If it doesn't work out, we make a big sign that says18:32
PiciWe told you so, and we go on with life.18:32
Tm_Tmirroring would draw moe conversation to -irc, so I think that's a plus18:32
* Daviey thinks mirroring is less than ideal, and a time limited experiement +1.18:32
LjLmessy bot output != conversation18:32
Tm_TLjL: that's not what I said (:18:33
vishjussi01: IMO , it seems a bit of an extra step for an imaginary danger.. the -ops could just have a more stern policy for trolls there..  +1 for trial though :)18:33
IdleOnewhat is to stop trolling in a mirror channel. while we can see what is being said in -ops?18:33
LjLa trial seems fine with me anyway.18:33
jussi01IdleOne: it doesnt interfere with the process18:33
topyliIdleOne, whatever is stopping trolls right now18:33
Davieya mirror channel would simply cause side discussion on peoples comments, making things more complicated for people to follow IMO.18:34
Tm_TDaviey: yeah, there's no perfect solution it seems18:34
IdleOnemy point is that while you are trying to resolve an issue with a user in -ops his friends can come in -irc and start adding their 2 cts and disrupting in a polite sorta trollish way18:34
PiciJust like dealing with a troublesome user:  If we unban too early, and the person is still an issue, we re-ban.  If opening up -ops to idlers becomes an issue, then we close it again.18:34
vish+1 to Pici :)18:35
Tm_Thow about opening AND mirroring for a month, we close -ops back if needed, and we stop mirroring if needed18:35
jussi01So IF we decided to go with a trial, how would you evaluate a success? failure?18:35
Davieyjussi01: i suggested something quite a while ago..18:35
IdleOnethe success is measured by how well the ops handle the added stress18:36
Tm_Tjussi01: comments in meeting and IRCC votes finally18:36
Tm_Tnot ideal, but ...18:36
topyliTm_T, that would make the closing process take too long18:36
Davieyno, the success is measured by all factors.  Allow everybody to raise issues, and success in a future meeting.  The IRCC can then evaulate based on what they have heard, if they think it's worth running it longer term.18:37
Tm_Tcomments while it goes, and then just closeup and decision in meeting?18:37
topyliDaviey's suggestion is better, the ircc makes quick decision once things get nasty18:37
vishjussi01: if the open channel is again a trouble, the members can mention the number of trolls/month and decide again over on the meeting18:37
PiciWe open it to idlers for a limited period of time. Say... 1 month.  Then we close it again, and discuss pros/cons to keeping it open.18:37
jussi01yeah, but what constitues actual success?  or failure? because if we did this, we will have the same 6 moth process to close it again.18:37
DavieyPici: That is a great idea, wish i had thought of it?18:38
PiciDaviey: I know you said it, just restating it again :)18:38
Tm_Twhat were the benefit from this? shouldn't we measure how those intended benefits goes?18:38
PiciOur 'regulars' will understand that we're running a trial, everyone else will have to cope.18:38
IdleOne+1 Pici18:38
IdleOneand Daviey18:39
Tm_TI'm still bit lost with the "why" as that determines how we measure success18:39
vishjust a common doubt , are you guys having any trouble in -ops as of now?  to compare later? how many unnecessary chat do you get? [my guess = 0]18:39
LjLvish: you must be kidding! they're blabbering all the time in there ;P18:39
Davieyvish: you would have to define "unnecessary chat"18:39
vishLjL: nah , i meant others/trolls.. not ops chat :)18:40
Tm_Tvish: we get interfering audience in time to time (:18:40
Tm_Tnot often, as we tend to make sure it won't happen18:40
topyliTm_T, sure, but we do show them out18:40
PiciTm_T: I think that measuring success will ultimately come to how the new idlers (not our ops) see how much trouble allowing spectators is.18:40
vishDaviey: = "the fear that prevents an open -ops"18:40
topylivish, it's not about chat (although that belongs in -ot). it's about interference in actual work18:41
PiciSo.. I'd like to get at least *one* issue voted on this meeting.18:41
* Daviey suggests the IRCC put this to a vote shortly.. we aren't getting any headway atm.18:41
vishtopyli: yup , how much interference do -ops face now?  so that we can compare later :)18:42
Tm_Tyup, better not let me ask more questions (;18:42
Picivish: low to zero.18:42
jussi01[vote] We open it to idlers for a limited period of time.  (1 month).  Then we close it again, and discuss pros/cons to keeping it open.18:42
MootBotPlease vote on:  We open it to idlers for a limited period of time.  (1 month).  Then we close it again, and discuss pros/cons to keeping it open..18:42
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 MootBot18:42
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting18:42
MootBot-1 received from topyli. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -118:43
MootBot+1 received from Pici. 1 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 018:43
vishonly ircc council can vote, right?18:43
MootBot-1 received from jussi01. 1 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -118:43
topylivish, right18:43
MootBotFinal result is 1 for, 2 against. 0 abstained. Total: -118:43
IdleOnethat settles that :)18:44
* Daviey is disappointed18:44
PriceyNo I don' think it does.18:44
PriceyWe only have 3 members out of 5(?) ?18:44
m4vshouldn't be 5 votes?18:44
vishhow is 3 members a quorum?18:44
IdleOnePricey: good cause I am also disappointed18:44
jussi01no, tsimpson and nhandler arent here18:44
topylishall we vote for alternative motions such as mirroring?18:44
PriceyDaviey: ^518:44
jussi01[topic]Extend ubuntu cloaks to include more information18:45
MootBotNew Topic: Extend ubuntu cloaks to include more information18:45
jussi01topyli: we need to wait for ythat vote to close when we receive nhandler and tsimpsons votes18:45
jussi01So, the cloaks.18:46
Picijussi01: Agreed.18:46
PiciDaviey, Pricey : so we won't close that vote until we have 2 more votes on it.18:46
PiciWhat other information did people want to see on cloaks, and why?18:47
Tm_TI think jussi01 has core-ops in mind on this18:48
jussi01Ok, so my thought was to add an additional field to the ubuntu cloaks, as to make it easy for groups to adminster irc chans etc. (by adding only a mask).18:48
DavieyPici: ok.18:48
jussi01this may be @ubuntu/member/kubuntu or @ubuntu/member/core-op etc18:48
Tm_Tlatter I undestand, but what's /kubuntu for ?18:48
jussi01It may be good to define what the groups can be in advance18:49
* LjL shudders18:49
jussi01Tm_T: example only18:49
jussi01LjL: why18:49
* Daviey wouldn't wear a cloak like that.18:49
ScottKSeems to me the Ubuntu community is fragmented enough already without adding to it.18:49
LjLjussi01: *not* allowing anything but "ubuntu member" in the cloaks was not random, it's a tradition that was stuck too almost with pride18:49
jussi01ScottK: to a point, but this makes things a lot easier for administration imho.18:50
jussi01LjL: again, why?18:50
mc44cloaks are not a tool to make your life easier18:50
Picimc44: +118:50
IdleOneI don't see the need to further identify what part of the community a user is in. /member/ubuntu is enough. we are all part of the same community, no need to add divisions18:50
jussi01cloaks are an identification tool imho.18:50
LjLcloaks aren't an identification tool, nickserv accounts are18:51
ScottKIf this is going to change, I don't think it should be just the IRCC deciding it.18:51
mc44yeah, they say "I'm part of this community"18:51
PiciScottK: Oh, I definitely agree with that.18:51
ScottKAnd the community we are a part of is Ubuntu.18:51
* Daviey wonders how changing cloaks, is that much easier than an LP-api + python cron job to change channel access.18:51
ScottKAlso I'm affialiated with multiple sub-communities in Ubuntu, can I have multiples?18:52
Tm_Tjussi01: is there some limits how many single lines can be in access list?18:52
PiciScottK: No, you'd need to choose one18:52
lifelesswhat if you're affiliated with other communities too18:52
jussi01Ok, lets stop the cynicism! Ive made a suggestion, let talk about it like adults please!18:52
jussi01Tm_T: I dont beleive so.18:52
ScottKjussi01: Disagreeing with your suggestion is not "talking about it like adults"18:52
Davieyjussi01: i don't think anyone is doing that.18:52
mc44jussi01: People are criticising your suggestion, where has anyone made an unadult remark?18:52
Picilifeless: we already allow some dual-cloaks, but we look at them on a case-by-case basis.18:53
Tm_Tjussi01: so this is for access lists or some other reasons too?18:53
Tm_Tlifeless: see mine for example18:53
jussi01Ok, I dont see any point in wasting any further time on this, its fairly obvious that there is no interest in changing it.18:54
Tm_TI do have18:54
Tm_Tas I do see why this would be helpful for core-ops, though it would label them a bit18:55
jussi01Tm_T: Ill think some more on it, and go to the list if I stil feel like its necessary (or you can).18:56
LjLand make it seem like an attempt to give core ops more prestige than other groups in ubuntu, since cloaks are also obviously a matter of personal pride more often than not18:56
Tm_Tjussi01: please do, I'm not good explaining things (:18:57
topyliwell, i would be uncomfortable entering ubuntu channels wearing a cloak adorned with titles18:57
jussi01[topic] Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave18:57
MootBotNew Topic:  Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave18:57
Tm_TLjL: or get them as a target too, it's two-way street18:57
jussi01Moving on.18:57
Tm_Ttopyli: true that18:57
Tm_TPici: wrong order (:18:58
* Pici moves on18:58
Tm_T+1 for more effort to have kind and friendly attitude, being a good example18:58
jussi01Tm_T: absolutely. but how do we acheive that.18:58
PiciTm_T: award custom cloaks for good operators18:59
* Pici hides18:59
* jussi01 sits on Pici18:59
LjLnot asking people who come to -ops to help or give hints and such whether they've got "anything else" 5 seconds after they've stopped speaking would be a good start in my opinion18:59
Tm_TLjL: +119:00
PiciLjL: Agreed.19:00
Tm_Tbasic rule, if you cannot keep your temper, atleast keep hands off of keyboard19:00
Garyremember that ops are also users, we are all human19:00
vishdiscussing attitude , is a bit misleading with the no-idlers policy.  since how does one measure the time limit?19:00
Daviey(except Gary, which is a superhero)19:00
guntbertone possibility: make it a habit to use the nick of the people you talk to in -ops too - prevents the feeling "they are talking over my head"19:00
Tm_Tvish: I think "when ops feel them as disturbance"19:01
IdleOneGary: agreed, you also agreed to be a op, leader in the community and in that respect I believe that it is your responsibility to set the example19:01
vishTm_T: thats again allowing idlers ;)19:01
Tm_Tvish: only a bit19:01
Tm_Tvish: you cannot idle long there without being disturbance for example, me19:01
* Tm_T hides19:01
vishasking a member "anything else" at any point of time _is_ rude ?  [when member has not disrupted anything of course]19:02
Gary IdleOne and I do, I am here with my -offtopic op hat on, just because I might also have a staff hat, I am still a user of both -offtopic and many other channels, being a op or staff makes little difference to that fact and I try to treat everyone the same19:02
vishwhich is again basically allowing idlers , so this is an oxymoron to discuss the attitude   :)19:02
vishtopyli: jussi01: just wanted to mention/remind again , that the -irc is an open channel but there isnt much interruption to work there. so... hope you guys reconsider the trial :)19:02
Tm_Tvish: no it's not rude automatically19:03
IdleOneGary: I used the term you as an example I did not mean to single you out if I did I do apologize19:03
LjLwell, it does come across as, if not entirely rude, a bit offputting, in all honesty.19:03
GaryIdleOne: not a problem, I re-read what I said and what you said, :-)19:03
Tm_TLjL: so how we ask if they need more assistance?19:03
topyliwe should be patient enough to explain why we're asking19:04
IdleOne+1 topyli19:04
vishTm_T: the member will ask if they need.. , it is the policy which is making the ops ask the question;)19:04
topyliwhich is a drag since we're going to do it time and time again, but for them it's the first time19:04
Garyhey there Tm_T, how are you doing, as we have a no idling policy we do request that people refrain from sitting idle here, but if their is anything more I can do for you please ask, thanks19:05
* topyli aliases that19:05
jussi01I think we need to remind operators just that, its a users first time in -ops (usually). Dont expect them to know the rules by osmosis19:05
Gary(but with less typo's)19:05
LjLTm_T: well, i guess it's for a reason that reopening -ops was considered just minutes ago! ;) but anyway, my suggestion is to 1) delay asking, don't run the risk of asking too soon, 2) be varied. don't adhere to a protocol. treat each individual personally, come up with something to tell to *that* individual. like "now, i should ask you to leave if you don't have anything else to ask, because that's the rule in this channel". if it's long, well i'm sure19:05
guntbertvish: are you distinguishing between ubuntu-members and other users?19:05
LjLno one will die of RSI out of it19:05
vishGary: that is still a polite "get out" you have no business her ;)19:05
vishguntbert: nope :)19:05
Garyvish: but at least it is polite19:06
Garynot sure what else to suggest if the no idle policyt stays19:06
Tm_TGary: I like that19:07
vishGary: there is no way of being polite and telling some one to leave , which is why this discussion is an oxymoron +*19:07
Tm_Tand I think LjL is saying pretty much the same19:07
Garyvish: yeah19:07
IdleOnevish: taking the time to explain the rule is better then saying "this is the rule" get out19:07
* Gary tickles Myrtti 19:07
Myrttiwhere are we on the agenda?19:07
LjLTm_T: mine was just an example though, the key of what i was saying is, make an effort to come up with something each time rather than acting according to a protocol (which eventually makes people think you're a drone)19:07
LjLand what IdleOne said19:08
GaryMyrtti: being more polite to peeps I think19:08
topylii think we all just need a general niceness reminder, there's nothing to decide really19:08
topyli+1 to being nice19:08
vishIdleOne: then the question arises why is the policy ? ;)    the user will say i havent disrupted anything...    I'd rather hope the policy is to mention the policy only to the disrupting members19:08
jussi01Peoples, This is intended to be a 1 hour meeting, and I have another place to be, so I will need to end the meeting now. However, I have no issues with you all continuing to talk.19:08
Tm_Tcan we slap fellow ops if they fail to be nice?19:09
IdleOnealso keep in mind that because of language barriers sometimes an explanation of a rule might come off as rude19:09
topyliTm_T, we must19:09
IdleOneso be nice, add a :) make sure that the user does not leave feeling like they got pushed out the door19:09
topylibut it has to be a very nice slap!19:09
hyperairisn't it #endmeeting?19:09
Tm_Ttopyli: thanks, I will slap and then hug (;19:09
vishjussi01: the bot hasnt ended the meeting..19:10
IdleOnevish: the idling policy has not been decided yet, till then the rule is to not allow idlers.19:10
vishPici: i think the chair is the only one who can do that  , so jussi0119:11
Picivish: aye19:11
topylii'm poking him with a mighty poke, perhaps he left already19:11
MootBotMeeting finished at 13:11.19:11
topyliyay :)19:11
IdleOnein any case. I think that topyli is correct and a be polite policy should always come first19:12
Tm_TIdleOne: agreed19:14
Tm_TI know I'm not always nice, and would love to hear when I'm not19:14
GaryI'm always nice :-)19:15
Tm_Tyou're always Gary19:15
IdleOneTm_T: allow me to idle in -ops and I will be glad to poke you when you are not always nice :)19:15
vishTm_T: me too ;D19:17
vishTm_T: why not have "interns" and allow them to idle ?19:17
jpdsvish: #ubuntu-irc-helpers if for that.19:17
IdleOneohhh, me@intern/ubuntu19:17
IdleOne+1 vish19:18
Myrttiparty is over, move on19:18
IdleOnehahah k :/19:19
=== lukjad007 is now known as lukjad86

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