[18:02] <jussi01> topyli: Pici nhandler_ ping!
[18:02] <topyli> pong
[18:02] <Pici> poing
[18:02] <jussi01> ooh, we have quorum!
[18:02] <jussi01> shall we wait a moment?
[18:03] <topyli> a Pici appears! :)
[18:03] <topyli> perhaps we can afford a few minutes
[18:03] <jussi01> #startmeeting
[18:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:03. The chair is jussi01.
[18:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:04] <jussi01> [Topic] Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v
[18:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Revisit #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no idling' & +v
[18:04] <jussi01> So then, I think the discussion has been done on the ML, any further thoughts from people?
[18:04] <jussi01> Pricey: Daviey around?
[18:04] <IdleOne> afternoon/evening all
[18:04] <jussi01> hi IdleOne
[18:05] <Pici> I'd like to restate that I'd be willing to try out alowing idlers again.
[18:05] <Gary> evening all
[18:05] <jussi01> heya Gary
[18:06] <Tm_T> hi
[18:06] <jussi01> My thought is Id like to see the introduction of a mirror channel, allowing greater transparency but not interuption.
[18:06] <Tm_T> I'd say the idlers with reasonable reason is allowed, people who we know
[18:07] <Gary> Tm_T: thats just was I was trying to verbalise
[18:07] <jussi01> Tm_T: that becomes to "we like you, so you can hang around"
[18:07] <LjL> jussi01: how's that different from +mz, +o to ops?
[18:07] <Tm_T> jussi01: itdoesn't have to
[18:07] <IdleOne> My two cents are, allowing idlers but I would be fine with a mirror channel
[18:07] <topyli> i could accept a mirror channel, or moderated idlers. the former seems less work. i'm not sure "selected idlers" would work very well
[18:07] <Pici> The mirror channel idea makes operators appear even more elitist imo
[18:08] <jussi01> Pici: how so?
[18:08] <Tm_T> I don't see how mirror channel differs from public logs
[18:08] <LjL> Pici: i agree, it seems convoluted for the sake of being so
[18:08] <jussi01> Tm_T: its instant
[18:08] <Daviey> jussi01: \o
[18:08] <Tm_T> jussi01: and we have good reason not to have instant logs, or atleast did
[18:08] <jussi01> hiya Daviey
[18:08] <Pici> jussi01: It puts us up on a pedistal, you can see us, but you're not allowed to interact.
[18:08] <LjL> jussi01: 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] <LjL> maybe things have changed.
[18:09] <Tm_T> what LjL said
[18:09] <Daviey> hey jussi01, nothing has changed in my opinion of have a trial of allowing idlers.
[18:09] <jussi01> Pici: I guess Ive mistated - the ops would idle in the mirror channel also.
[18:09] <topyli> LjL, they have not
[18:09] <jussi01> so you would have a channel for sorting issues and another channel which the ops reside, but not for dispute resolution
[18:10] <LjL> seems very similar to #ubuntu-ops vs #ubuntu-irc, though not identical
[18:10] <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 there
[18:10] <jussi01> it could be as simple as mirroring -ops to -irc
[18:11] <jussi01> allowing 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.
[18:12] <Tm_T> it 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 ops
[18:12] <LjL> jussi01: 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?
[18:13] <jussi01> LjL: not really, that adds work to the ops load. a mirror bot is very simple.
[18:13] <LjL> poor ops :)
[18:13] <Pici> I 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] <jussi01> I think there might even be a supybot plugin for it
[18:14] <jussi01> Pici: I strongly disagree. I think allowing idlers in -ops is a recipe for trouble.
[18:15]  * Daviey fails to understand why a time limited experiment can't be tested.
[18:15] <Tm_T> ok, so who are the people who complains -ops being no-idling?
[18:15] <Daviey> \o
[18:15] <topyli> if we let idlers in and remove them after, say, a month again, there'll be hell to pay
[18:15] <LjL> i can say that #gentoo-ops seemed to work fine while i was there while allowing idlers
[18:15] <Tm_T> Daviey: so, you think anyone should be allowed to idle there?
[18:15] <Daviey> topyli: Not if policy makes it clear it's a time limited experiment. IMO
[18:16] <Daviey> Tm_T: I think it's worthy of an experiment, yes
[18:16] <Tm_T> Daviey: even persistent trolls?
[18:16] <Pici> I'm willing to try it out.
[18:16] <topyli> Tm_T, well, trolls aren't allowed anywhere :)
[18:16] <Daviey> Tm_T: if they cause problems in the channel, like any other channel, it needs to be dealt with.
[18:17] <Tm_T> Daviey: hmm, so if they behave in -ops, it's ok? roger
[18:17] <Daviey> Tm_T: makes sense to me.
[18:17] <Tm_T> thanks for clearing it
[18:17] <Daviey> I'm not stating it WILL work, but it's something i think should be tested.
[18:17] <Pici> Daviey: exactly what I'm thinking.
[18:18] <Tm_T> how we measure success/failure?
[18:18] <Pici> If only just so I can tell people that we've tried it.
[18:18] <Daviey> agreed.
[18:18] <Gary> Tm_T: if we revert back to no idleing after two days, it's failed
[18:18] <jussi01> but we HAVE tried it! it DIDNT work then, why would it work now?
[18:18] <Daviey> Tm_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.
[18:19] <Pici> jussi01: When did we try it?
[18:19] <Daviey> if it's a resounding failure, then the issue is resolved.. otherwise consider a longer term plan.
[18:19] <LjL> Pici: before the current policy was instated, i guess :P
[18:19] <jussi01> Pici: when -ops was first started it was open.
[18:19] <topyli> i also seem to remember that the no-idle policy was implemented at some point for some reason :)
[18:19] <Pici> jussi01: That was a very long time ago.
[18:19] <Tm_T> Daviey: and it's up to ops to say it's success/failure or "all" ?
[18:19]  * jussi01 has quite clear memories of that time
[18:20] <Daviey> Tm_T: I would suggest everyone can raise their opinions
[18:20] <Tm_T> jussi01: I'm too old to remember that far
[18:20] <IdleOne> jussi01: that was also when the community was a lot smaller and there were less "good" users
[18:20] <Pici> For 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 reason
[18:20] <Pici> m willing to give it a shot just to say that we tried.
[18:20] <Tm_T> Daviey: but who's opinion counts, who has final say?
[18:20] <Tm_T> Mamarok: agreed
[18:20] <Mamarok> and there are logs, so there is no idling needed
[18:21] <Mamarok> for those who want to have a look at how we work
[18:21] <Daviey> Tm_T: I would suggest it's the IRCC's vote, based on what they have heard in the meeting.
[18:21] <Tm_T> Daviey: roger, that's clear enough (:
[18:21] <Mamarok> there 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 them
[18:21] <Mamarok> noise*
[18:22] <topyli> i sure don't want to confer in -meeting (twice?) about whether or not we're enjoying the idlers
[18:22] <Daviey> I'm not sure "enjoying" is a term that is related to the issue topyli.
[18:23] <topyli> Daviey, we should be noticing some benefits, improvements in our work, or similar
[18:23] <Pici> Mamarok: 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] <Mamarok> Pici: I shudder at that trial already
[18:24] <Tm_T> Pici: yeah, I don't like the fact we need to prove it to others, but if that's what is needed...
[18:24] <Mamarok> also, as jussi01 pointed out, it has been tried and it doidn't work
[18:24] <Mamarok> didn't
[18:24] <mc44> It did work
[18:24] <LjL> mc44 <3
[18:24] <Pici> It did work.
[18:24] <Mamarok> aren't there logs available when that was tried last time?
[18:24] <Daviey> it wasn't really "tried", it just happend.
[18:24] <mc44> It was stopped because of paranoia
[18:24] <Daviey> It's how -ops was concieved
[18:25] <mc44> Not because of any actual problems
[18:25] <Tm_T> mc44: hmm, like to elaborate?
[18:25] <Pici> Allowing idlers was how I got to know the op team before I was asked to become an op myself.
[18:25] <mc44> Tm_T: someone thought someone running a botnet was idling in the channel or something. Turns out they weren't.
[18:25] <Daviey> The no-ideler policy suddenly appeard without any discussion ISTR.  It was sporadically enforced, which caused more confusion.
[18:26] <Tm_T> jussi01: slap me when I'm taking too much time in one issue, btw
[18:26]  * 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] <Gary> Pici: and it'd be how we/they get to know each other in the future I'm sure
[18:26] <Tm_T> mc44: single occasion and then decided?
[18:26] <LjL> vish: isn't that perhaps more due to how people actually entering -ops are treated?
[18:27] <mc44> Tm_T: then someone put it in the topic, and it became decided like that story with the monkeys and the hose :p
[18:27] <jussi01> But the benefits you are highlighting will be acheived with mirroring into -irc, and having the ops idle there, no?
[18:27] <Tm_T> vish: true, but it doesn't need to be frightening experience, we should handle it better
[18:27] <vish> LjL: 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_T> jussi01: yes, I think so
[18:27] <LjL> mc44: hm no i think that time it was a bit more carefully decided than that (although it might still have been paranoia)
[18:28] <Tm_T> mc44: I don't remember it being that simple decision, though I don't remember much (:
[18:28] <LjL> vish: fair enough, although one has to consider that any given op isn't *forced* to say that or send people away
[18:28] <LjL> unless they interpret the policy that way
[18:28] <mc44> jussi01: 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 channel
[18:28] <Pici> It happened after I became an op, but before I knew what was going on (so I don't really remember why)
[18:29] <Pici> So... Whats next?
[18:29] <Gary> I don't like the idea of mirroring, it seems (imho) overkill and messy
[18:29] <Pici> We've spent a half an hour talking about this.
[18:29] <topyli> are we going to defer this to another meeting or decide something in this one?
[18:29] <topyli> Pici, thank you
[18:29] <mc44> just keep delaying it, that should solve the problem :)
[18:29] <IdleOne> hah
[18:30] <Tm_T> I really wish we could just get _our_ attitudes and output more friendly and keep the policy & all as they are
[18:30] <Tm_T> most if not all these problems can be fixed by kind behaviour, I think
[18:30] <vish> LjL: 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 there
[18:30] <Gary> being ubuntu, we should be able to be more open, friendly etc, try to talk trolls into submition/giving up hope
[18:31] <Tm_T> vish: that's why I would like to see ops talking in -irc too
[18:31] <LjL> vish: 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] <jussi01> vish: but if the channel was mirrored to -irc, why could you not idle there and earn?
[18:31] <jussi01> learn
[18:31] <topyli> apart from the historical musings, we have two suggestions. jussi01's mirroring suggestion, and Pici's experiment
[18:32] <Pici> Whats 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 says
[18:32] <Pici> We told you so, and we go on with life.
[18:32] <Tm_T> mirroring would draw moe conversation to -irc, so I think that's a plus
[18:32]  * Daviey thinks mirroring is less than ideal, and a time limited experiement +1.
[18:32] <LjL> messy bot output != conversation
[18:33] <Tm_T> LjL: that's not what I said (:
[18:33] <vish> jussi01: 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] <IdleOne> what is to stop trolling in a mirror channel. while we can see what is being said in -ops?
[18:33] <LjL> a trial seems fine with me anyway.
[18:33] <jussi01> IdleOne: it doesnt interfere with the process
[18:33] <topyli> IdleOne, whatever is stopping trolls right now
[18:34] <Daviey> a mirror channel would simply cause side discussion on peoples comments, making things more complicated for people to follow IMO.
[18:34] <Tm_T> Daviey: yeah, there's no perfect solution it seems
[18:34] <IdleOne> my 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 way
[18:34] <Pici> Just 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.
[18:35] <vish> +1 to Pici :)
[18:35] <Tm_T> how about opening AND mirroring for a month, we close -ops back if needed, and we stop mirroring if needed
[18:35] <jussi01> So IF we decided to go with a trial, how would you evaluate a success? failure?
[18:35] <Daviey> jussi01: i suggested something quite a while ago..
[18:36] <IdleOne> the success is measured by how well the ops handle the added stress
[18:36] <Tm_T> jussi01: comments in meeting and IRCC votes finally
[18:36] <Tm_T> not ideal, but ...
[18:36] <topyli> Tm_T, that would make the closing process take too long
[18:37] <Daviey> no, 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_T> comments while it goes, and then just closeup and decision in meeting?
[18:37] <topyli> Daviey's suggestion is better, the ircc makes quick decision once things get nasty
[18:37] <vish> jussi01: if the open channel is again a trouble, the members can mention the number of trolls/month and decide again over on the meeting
[18:37] <Pici> We 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] <jussi01> yeah, but what constitues actual success?  or failure? because if we did this, we will have the same 6 moth process to close it again.
[18:38] <Daviey> Pici: That is a great idea, wish i had thought of it?
[18:38] <Daviey> :)
[18:38] <Pici> Daviey: I know you said it, just restating it again :)
[18:38] <Tm_T> what were the benefit from this? shouldn't we measure how those intended benefits goes?
[18:38] <Pici> Our 'regulars' will understand that we're running a trial, everyone else will have to cope.
[18:38] <IdleOne> +1 Pici
[18:39] <IdleOne> and Daviey
[18:39] <Pici> :)
[18:39] <Tm_T> I'm still bit lost with the "why" as that determines how we measure success
[18:39] <vish> just 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] <LjL> vish: you must be kidding! they're blabbering all the time in there ;P
[18:39] <Daviey> vish: you would have to define "unnecessary chat"
[18:40] <vish> LjL: nah , i meant others/trolls.. not ops chat :)
[18:40] <Tm_T> vish: we get interfering audience in time to time (:
[18:40] <Tm_T> not often, as we tend to make sure it won't happen
[18:40] <topyli> Tm_T, sure, but we do show them out
[18:40] <Pici> Tm_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] <vish> Daviey: = "the fear that prevents an open -ops"
[18:41] <topyli> vish, it's not about chat (although that belongs in -ot). it's about interference in actual work
[18:41] <Pici> So.. 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.
[18:42] <vish> topyli: yup , how much interference do -ops face now?  so that we can compare later :)
[18:42] <Tm_T> yup, better not let me ask more questions (;
[18:42] <Pici> vish: 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] <MootBot> Please 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] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[18:42] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[18:43] <topyli> -1
[18:43] <MootBot> -1 received from topyli. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
[18:43] <Pici> +1
[18:43] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 1 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 0
[18:43] <vish> only ircc council can vote, right?
[18:43] <jussi01> -1
[18:43] <MootBot> -1 received from jussi01. 1 for, 2 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
[18:43] <topyli> vish, right
[18:43] <jussi01> [Endvote]
[18:43] <MootBot> Final result is 1 for, 2 against. 0 abstained. Total: -1
[18:44] <IdleOne> that settles that :)
[18:44]  * Daviey is disappointed
[18:44] <Pricey> No I don' think it does.
[18:44] <Pricey> We only have 3 members out of 5(?) ?
[18:44] <m4v> shouldn't be 5 votes?
[18:44] <vish> how is 3 members a quorum?
[18:44] <IdleOne> Pricey: good cause I am also disappointed
[18:44] <jussi01> no, tsimpson and nhandler arent here
[18:44] <topyli> shall we vote for alternative motions such as mirroring?
[18:44] <Daviey> *sigh*
[18:44] <Pricey> Daviey: ^5
[18:45] <jussi01> [topic]Extend ubuntu cloaks to include more information
[18:45] <MootBot> New Topic: Extend ubuntu cloaks to include more information
[18:45] <Pici> -1
[18:45] <jussi01> topyli: we need to wait for ythat vote to close when we receive nhandler and tsimpsons votes
[18:46] <jussi01> So, the cloaks.
[18:46] <topyli> okay
[18:46] <Pici> jussi01: Agreed.
[18:46] <Pici> Daviey, Pricey : so we won't close that vote until we have 2 more votes on it.
[18:47] <Pici> What other information did people want to see on cloaks, and why?
[18:48] <Tm_T> I think jussi01 has core-ops in mind on this
[18:48] <jussi01> Ok, 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] <Daviey> Pici: ok.
[18:48] <jussi01> this may be @ubuntu/member/kubuntu or @ubuntu/member/core-op etc
[18:48] <Tm_T> latter I undestand, but what's /kubuntu for ?
[18:49] <jussi01> It may be good to define what the groups can be in advance
[18:49]  * LjL shudders
[18:49] <jussi01> Tm_T: example only
[18:49] <Tm_T> roger
[18:49] <jussi01> LjL: why
[18:49]  * Daviey wouldn't wear a cloak like that.
[18:49] <ScottK> Seems to me the Ubuntu community is fragmented enough already without adding to it.
[18:49] <LjL> jussi01: *not* allowing anything but "ubuntu member" in the cloaks was not random, it's a tradition that was stuck too almost with pride
[18:50] <jussi01> ScottK: to a point, but this makes things a lot easier for administration imho.
[18:50] <jussi01> LjL: again, why?
[18:50] <mc44> cloaks are not a tool to make your life easier
[18:50] <LjL> mc44++
[18:50] <Pici> mc44: +1
[18:50] <IdleOne> I 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 divisions
[18:50] <jussi01> cloaks are an identification tool imho.
[18:51] <LjL> cloaks aren't an identification tool, nickserv accounts are
[18:51] <ScottK> If this is going to change, I don't think it should be just the IRCC deciding it.
[18:51] <mc44> yeah, they say "I'm part of this community"
[18:51] <Pici> ScottK: Oh, I definitely agree with that.
[18:51] <ScottK> And 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.
[18:52] <ScottK> Also I'm affialiated with multiple sub-communities in Ubuntu, can I have multiples?
[18:52] <Tm_T> jussi01: is there some limits how many single lines can be in access list?
[18:52] <Pici> ScottK: No, you'd need to choose one
[18:52] <lifeless> what if you're affiliated with other communities too
[18:52] <jussi01> Ok, lets stop the cynicism! Ive made a suggestion, let talk about it like adults please!
[18:52] <jussi01> Tm_T: I dont beleive so.
[18:52] <ScottK> jussi01: Disagreeing with your suggestion is not "talking about it like adults"
[18:52] <Daviey> jussi01: i don't think anyone is doing that.
[18:52] <mc44> jussi01: People are criticising your suggestion, where has anyone made an unadult remark?
[18:53] <Pici> lifeless: we already allow some dual-cloaks, but we look at them on a case-by-case basis.
[18:53] <Tm_T> jussi01: so this is for access lists or some other reasons too?
[18:53] <Tm_T> lifeless: see mine for example
[18:54] <jussi01> Ok, 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_T> I do have
[18:55] <Tm_T> as I do see why this would be helpful for core-ops, though it would label them a bit
[18:56] <jussi01> Tm_T: Ill think some more on it, and go to the list if I stil feel like its necessary (or you can).
[18:56] <LjL> and 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 not
[18:57] <Tm_T> jussi01: please do, I'm not good explaining things (:
[18:57] <topyli> well, i would be uncomfortable entering ubuntu channels wearing a cloak adorned with titles
[18:57] <jussi01> [topic] Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave
[18:57] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave
[18:57] <Tm_T> LjL: or get them as a target too, it's two-way street
[18:57] <jussi01> Moving on.
[18:57] <Tm_T> topyli: true that
[18:57] <Pici> ubuntu/member/topyli/smoothoperator
[18:58] <Tm_T> Pici: wrong order (:
[18:58]  * Pici moves on
[18:58] <topyli> :)
[18:58] <Tm_T> +1 for more effort to have kind and friendly attitude, being a good example
[18:58] <IdleOne> ubuntu/member/mycloakisbetterthenyours/nick
[18:58] <jussi01> Tm_T: absolutely. but how do we acheive that.
[18:59] <Pici> Tm_T: award custom cloaks for good operators
[18:59]  * Pici hides
[18:59]  * jussi01 sits on Pici
[18:59] <LjL> not 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 opinion
[19:00] <Tm_T> LjL: +1
[19:00] <Pici> LjL: Agreed.
[19:00] <Tm_T> basic rule, if you cannot keep your temper, atleast keep hands off of keyboard
[19:00] <Gary> remember that ops are also users, we are all human
[19:00] <vish> discussing 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] <guntbert> one 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"
[19:01] <Tm_T> vish: I think "when ops feel them as disturbance"
[19:01] <IdleOne> Gary: 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 example
[19:01] <vish> Tm_T: thats again allowing idlers ;)
[19:01] <Tm_T> vish: only a bit
[19:01] <Tm_T> vish: you cannot idle long there without being disturbance for example, me
[19:01]  * Tm_T hides
[19:02] <vish> asking 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 same
[19:02] <vish> which is again basically allowing idlers , so this is an oxymoron to discuss the attitude   :)
[19:02] <vish> topyli: 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 :)
[19:03] <Tm_T> vish: no it's not rude automatically
[19:03] <IdleOne> Gary: I used the term you as an example I did not mean to single you out if I did I do apologize
[19:03] <LjL> well, it does come across as, if not entirely rude, a bit offputting, in all honesty.
[19:03] <Gary> IdleOne: not a problem, I re-read what I said and what you said, :-)
[19:03] <IdleOne> :)
[19:03] <Tm_T> LjL: so how we ask if they need more assistance?
[19:04] <topyli> we should be patient enough to explain why we're asking
[19:04] <IdleOne> +1 topyli
[19:04] <vish> Tm_T: the member will ask if they need.. , it is the policy which is making the ops ask the question;)
[19:04] <topyli> which is a drag since we're going to do it time and time again, but for them it's the first time
[19:05] <Gary> hey 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, thanks
[19:05]  * topyli aliases that
[19:05] <jussi01> I think we need to remind operators just that, its a users first time in -ops (usually). Dont expect them to know the rules by osmosis
[19:05] <Gary> (but with less typo's)
[19:05] <LjL> Tm_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 sure
[19:05] <guntbert> vish: are you distinguishing between ubuntu-members and other users?
[19:05] <LjL> no one will die of RSI out of it
[19:05] <vish> Gary: that is still a polite "get out" you have no business her ;)
[19:05] <vish> guntbert: nope :)
[19:06] <Gary> vish: but at least it is polite
[19:06] <vish> s/her/here
[19:06] <Gary> not sure what else to suggest if the no idle policyt stays
[19:07] <Tm_T> Gary: I like that
[19:07] <vish> Gary: there is no way of being polite and telling some one to leave , which is why this discussion is an oxymoron +*
[19:07] <Tm_T> and I think LjL is saying pretty much the same
[19:07] <Gary> vish: yeah
[19:07] <IdleOne> vish: taking the time to explain the rule is better then saying "this is the rule" get out
[19:07] <Myrtti> ohai
[19:07]  * Gary tickles Myrtti 
[19:07] <Myrtti> where are we on the agenda?
[19:07] <LjL> Tm_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)
[19:08] <LjL> and what IdleOne said
[19:08] <Gary> Myrtti: being more polite to peeps I think
[19:08] <topyli> i think we all just need a general niceness reminder, there's nothing to decide really
[19:08] <topyli> +1 to being nice
[19:08] <IdleOne> +1
[19:08] <vish> IdleOne: 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 members
[19:08] <jussi01> Peoples, 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.
[19:09] <Tm_T> can we slap fellow ops if they fail to be nice?
[19:09] <IdleOne> also keep in mind that because of language barriers sometimes an explanation of a rule might come off as rude
[19:09] <jussi01> [endmeeting]
[19:09] <topyli> Tm_T, we must
[19:09] <IdleOne> so be nice, add a :) make sure that the user does not leave feeling like they got pushed out the door
[19:09] <topyli> but it has to be a very nice slap!
[19:09] <hyperair> isn't it #endmeeting?
[19:09] <Tm_T> topyli: thanks, I will slap and then hug (;
[19:09] <topyli> <3
[19:10] <vish> jussi01: the bot hasnt ended the meeting..
[19:10] <Pici> #endmeetig
[19:10] <Pici> #endmeeting
[19:10] <IdleOne> vish: the idling policy has not been decided yet, till then the rule is to not allow idlers.
[19:10] <IdleOne> afaik
[19:11] <vish> Pici: i think the chair is the only one who can do that  , so jussi01
[19:11] <Pici> vish: aye
[19:11] <topyli> i'm poking him with a mighty poke, perhaps he left already
[19:11] <jussi01> #endmeeting
[19:11] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:11.
[19:11] <topyli> yay :)
[19:11] <vish> \o/
[19:12] <IdleOne> in any case. I think that topyli is correct and a be polite policy should always come first
[19:14] <Tm_T> IdleOne: agreed
[19:14] <Tm_T> I know I'm not always nice, and would love to hear when I'm not
[19:15] <Gary> I'm always nice :-)
[19:15] <Tm_T> you're always Gary
[19:15] <IdleOne> Tm_T: allow me to idle in -ops and I will be glad to poke you when you are not always nice :)
[19:16] <dutchie> x9=
[19:17] <vish> Tm_T: me too ;D
[19:17] <vish> Tm_T: why not have "interns" and allow them to idle ?
[19:17] <jpds> vish: #ubuntu-irc-helpers if for that.
[19:17] <IdleOne> ohhh, me@intern/ubuntu
[19:18] <IdleOne> +1 vish
[19:18] <Myrtti> party is over, move on
[19:19] <IdleOne> hahah k :/
[20:43] <CrashOverride> meeting?