[19:59]  * Pici yawns
[20:00] <jussi01> o/
[20:00] <nhandler> o/
[20:00] <topyli> o/
[20:00] <topyli> i think Pici is sort of present as well :)
[20:01] <jussi01> SO everyone except tsimpson is here. we have quorum.
[20:01] <Pici> \o
[20:01] <topyli> i will chair
[20:01] <topyli> #startmeeting
[20:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:01. The chair is topyli.
[20:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:01] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[20:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[20:01] <jussi01> topyli: skip the first one
[20:01] <topyli> it is a non-issue
[20:02] <jussi01> and tsimpson isnt here.
[20:02] <nhandler> And it looks like we dropped the ball on coming up with an agreed upon definition of a core channel for the second item
[20:02] <nhandler> We had a couple of proposals, but nothing was agreed upon afaik
[20:02] <topyli> i think -women have decided they don't need to be core anyway. anyone here?
[20:02] <Pici> Is there somewhere where we documented the proposals?
[20:03] <nhandler> Pici: I can hunt them down for you after the meeting. I have them in my logs somewhere
[20:03] <jussi01> pleia2: about?
[20:03] <Tm_T> topyli: there's no decision about that until there's something up what _is_ core channel, and how to become one
[20:03] <Tm_T> IIRC
[20:03] <nhandler> topyli: I think you are correct. They were more interested in exploring if it would provide any benefits for their team iirc
[20:04] <Pici> And since we couldn't tell them what a core channel was... it wasn't much use discussing.
[20:04] <topyli> Tm_T, this is about -women. we can discuss core channels more generally though
[20:04] <Tm_T> topyli: I think it requires that
[20:04] <Pici> I agree.
[20:05] <topyli> do we have opinions about the concept of 'core'?
[20:05] <Tm_T> covering the fundamental bits of *ubuntu ?
[20:05] <topyli> i suggest deferring this to the next meeting and discussing it on the mailing list in the mean time
[20:05] <Pici> I concur.
[20:05] <nhandler> topyli: Agreed. Especialy since one of the key proposals was made by tsimpson who is not present right now
[20:06] <jussi01> topyli: +1, if perhaps someone puts the proposals in a mail and we can talk about it
[20:06] <topyli> that too
[20:06] <topyli> ok, deferring
[20:06] <nhandler> I can hunt down the ones that were made a few weeks ago on IRC and send them to the list
[20:06] <Pici> Sounds good.
[20:06] <jussi01> topyli: want to add that as an action?
[20:07] <topyli> [ACTION] topyli to start discussion about 'core channels' on mailing list
[20:07] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to start discussion about 'core channels' on mailing list
[20:07] <topyli> talk about quick volunteering!
[20:07] <jussi01> excellent.
[20:07] <nhandler> So you are going to start the discussion topyli ?
[20:07] <Pici> Whats next?
[20:08] <topyli> nhandler, i'll send mail
[20:08] <jussi01> topyli: next topic?
[20:08] <topyli> hold on, i'm learning :)
[20:09] <topyli> [TOPIC] technical guide for operators
[20:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  technical guide for operators
[20:09] <nhandler> Does someone want to talk about this in tsimpson's place ?
[20:09] <topyli> this is tsimpson's idea but i think we can agree that we need this
[20:09] <jussi01> we have most of that, it just needs to be dragged together.
[20:09] <nhandler> jussi01: Do you have a link to where it is being worked on?
[20:09] <Pici> Or is it just an idea right now?
[20:10] <jussi01> I think this can be delegated somewhat, if there are any irc'ers who want to help out..
[20:10] <topyli> i don't think there's a draft
[20:10] <jussi01> nhandler: its just an idea.
[20:10] <Pici> There are bits and peices on the wiki already, just nothing consise.
[20:10] <jussi01> but there is stuff on the bots page and stuff on the op guidelines page
[20:10] <nhandler> jussi01: I can start a basic guide, but I would prefer some help with it
[20:10] <nhandler> freenode also has some stuff on their site we can use
[20:10] <Tm_T> does this include scripts?
[20:11] <persia> I'd be very glad to help review such a guide, but I don't have the information necessary to contribute to it.
[20:11] <jussi01> nhandler: I think we need to pull in some of the ops/helpers on this one.
[20:11] <nhandler> Tm_T: I think we should mention stuff like auto_bleh and the ChanServ xchat script
[20:11] <nhandler> jussi01: +1
[20:11] <jussi01> Tm_T: its should at least link to scripts
[20:11] <Pici> I'd like to help... if I can find the time :/
[20:11] <topyli> Tm_T, it should link to useful scripts, but we want ops to know the commands too
[20:11] <jussi01> nhandler: perhaps its worth you calling for contributors on the ml?
[20:11] <nhandler> jussi01: That is fine
[20:11] <Tm_T> good that will be covered
[20:12] <nhandler> jussi01: I'll also create a list of topics on the wiki to make it easier for people to contribute
[20:12] <Pici> nhandler: great!
[20:12] <nhandler> topyli: Can you give me the action?
[20:12] <jussi01> so, the action then is that nhandler will write to the list and create a base wiki page.
[20:12] <Tm_T> nhandler: awesome
[20:12] <topyli> [ACTION] nhandler to start a wiki page on technical ops guidelines
[20:12] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to start a wiki page on technical ops guidelines
[20:13] <jussi01> excellent
[20:13] <topyli> {TOPIC] at least one loco operator to idle in -irc, and be easily contactable
[20:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  at least one loco operator to idle in -irc, and be easily contactable
[20:13] <Pici> I think that some of the floodbot stuff should be documented there as well, covering the next  meeting item.
[20:13] <jussi01> yeah, this was my idea
[20:13] <topyli> from each loco that is :)
[20:14] <Tm_T> +1 for loco presence
[20:14] <topyli> i wholeheartedly support this idea
[20:14] <jussi01> we often have issues finding ops from the locos, and i think we need to have a "goto" person.
[20:14] <Pici> Agreed.
[20:14] <nhandler> But how would we know who is representing which loco ?
[20:15] <topyli> we all seem to agree. how do we get locos to do this in practice?
[20:15] <jussi01> Perhaps we can work with the loco council to get the message out to loco's
[20:15] <Pici> The contacts are listed on our IRC page, but I think that it might still be good to get someone to idle in -irc tooo
[20:15] <Pici> nhandler: ^
[20:15] <jussi01> we ask them to list a contact, their irc nick and agree that they will idle in -irc
[20:16] <nhandler> And what would this person be tasked with?
[20:16] <Pici> There was a list at one point of core operators that were fluent in other languages, something like that would be helpful for -irc issues too
[20:16] <jussi01> the loco council is currently doing re-approvals for locos, perhaps it can be worked into that.
[20:16] <jussi01> Pici: yeah, that list is fairly unmaintained, but it is still on the wiki
[20:17] <jussi01> nhandler: general contact for anything irc regarding that loco
[20:17] <persia> Consider accepting pairs or trios of LoCo reps from larger LoCos that may end up with wide ranges of times of activity.
[20:17] <Tm_T> jussi01: then it needs maintaining, blame the locos (:)
[20:17] <nhandler> Out of curiosity, do we know how many LoCos would be affected by this change? A lot of LoCos are already represented in -irc
[20:17] <jussi01> persia: very good idea
[20:18] <jussi01> nhandler: yes, but this gives us a list with an irc nick to go to.
[20:18] <jussi01> ie. oh, we have a .fi problem, grab Tm_T
[20:18] <Pici> Maybe we just need to expand on the information listed in the !irc page.
[20:18] <jussi01> so the list provides us with someone to ping as a first point of call.
[20:19] <Pici> Together with asking those people to idle in -irc.
[20:19] <persia> Pici: You mean just add a "contact" column?
[20:19] <nhandler> jussi01: It might be useful to utilize ubottu's factoids to make it easy for people to quickly find an !ubuntu-chicago op
[20:19] <jussi01> Pici: thats  a good point.
[20:19] <Pici> persia: We have a contact column already.
[20:19] <jussi01> nhandler: that quickly becomes unmanageable.
[20:19] <Pici> So why maintain a separate list if some of the information is already there.
[20:20] <nhandler> jussi01: Would it become any more unmanageable than trying to maintain a list on the wiki?
[20:20] <jussi01> nhandler: anyone can edit the wiki...
[20:20] <nhandler> jussi01: Good point
[20:21] <topyli> shall we ask for help from the loco council with this, and push it through?
[20:21] <jussi01> ok, so I see 2 things here. 1 making sure the contacts on the wiki are up to date. having those contacts idle in -irc
[20:21] <Pici> Neither is a great solution at the moment.  Both have their flaws.  The wiki is just text, nothing ties a particular entry to another one., and the bot factoids aren't the quickest to modify.
[20:22] <topyli> idling on -irc should be a strong recommendation, but not a requirement
[20:22] <jussi01> topyli: I think getting the loco council to help out, at least with advice, is a good thing
[20:22] <Pici> Right. As long as we have a few contacts to go to in case of an issue.
[20:23] <nhandler> It might also be good to send a list to the loco contacts ML to get their opinions
[20:23] <topyli> who wants to contact them so we can further act on this in our next meeting?
[20:23] <topyli> and yes, nhandler
[20:23] <persia> Just keeping the contact list up-to-date in the !irc page is probably cleaner than duplicating it.
[20:24] <jussi01> mind, we have had a thought with the bot devel to have the !ops calls maintained by the bot taking entries from the access lists. if that happens the bot entries thong could easily be done.
[20:24] <Pici> Yes.
[20:24] <nhandler> jussi01: That was what I was thinking as well.
[20:24] <jussi01> yeah, and s/thong/thing
[20:24] <m4v> for the spanish locos, I only see an op from -mx joining regularly, but there's a u-es-locos channel where some more join
[20:24] <topyli> would be a huge improvement
[20:25] <jussi01> its something we have on the radar, but we could always do with more bot contribs
[20:26] <topyli> so. we should talk with the loco council
[20:26] <topyli> who wants to mail them?
[20:27] <jussi01> I guess best port of call now would be to mail the loco's, remind them that they need to update theier contacts, (there can be more than one), and try idle in -irc.
[20:27] <jussi01> topyli: I can do that contact/mail.
[20:27] <topyli> ok, that sounds good
[20:28] <jussi01> are we all agreed on that?
[20:28] <nhandler> I am fine with that
[20:28] <topyli> yes
[20:28] <Pici> Yessir
[20:28] <jussi01> perfect, please make it an action topyli
[20:28] <topyli> [ACTION] jussi01 to contact locos and council about updating their contacts and idling on -irc
[20:28] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jussi01 to contact locos and council about updating their contacts and idling on -irc
[20:29] <topyli> tsimpson's floodbot issue. can we handle it?
[20:30] <jussi01> topyli: next.
[20:30] <topyli> it's mainly a discussion item, and i think we need his input on it
[20:30] <jussi01> yes
[20:30] <jussi01> and it probably goes into afore mentioned guide
[20:30] <Pici> I think that some of that will be documented on the operators page, but I'd like to hear from him the other issues he might have with them
[20:30] <topyli> ikonia's long-term-problem-user policy is next
[20:30] <jussi01> ikonia: about?
[20:30] <Pici> Also.. we need to discuss what we're doing with the floodbot's bugs.
[20:31] <jussi01> yeah, someone needs to report them.
[20:31] <jussi01> whe we have a list we can then work on them
[20:31] <Pici> I removed 450 (!) stale exempts ysterday.
[20:32] <Pici> jussi01: Where am I reporting them?
[20:32] <jussi01> Pici: LP, against our bots project for now
[20:32] <jussi01> !bot
[20:33] <Pici> !bug
[20:33] <Pici> :)
[20:33] <jussi01> yeah, that one
[20:33] <Pici> Will do
[20:34] <jussi01> ok, ikonia doesnt seem to be around?
[20:34] <topyli> let's discuss the problem user policy shortly. we discussed this by email, but we haven't updated the policy on the wiki afaik. we must do that
[20:34] <jussi01> topyli: topic then ;)
[20:35] <topyli> [TOPIC] policy on long term problem users
[20:35] <MootBot> New Topic:  policy on long term problem users
[20:35] <topyli> i think we decided not to allow pre-emptive bans or anything like that. that's freenode stuff
[20:35] <jussi01> yes.
[20:36] <jussi01> thats been in force for sometime.
[20:36] <topyli> yes, but it's not written anywhere
[20:36] <jussi01> we should be alerting staff.
[20:36] <jussi01> topyli: apart from a few ML posts, no.
[20:36]  * Pici makes a note to update !staff 
[20:36] <topyli> it belongs on the operator guidelines page on the wiki
[20:36] <jussi01> topyli: I think it works into our updating of the ops guidelines
[20:37] <topyli> yes
[20:37] <jussi01> topyli:  :D
[20:37] <Pici> yes
[20:37] <nhandler> +1 here
[20:37] <topyli> however, we should have the option to make very rare exceptions i think. this is where we might disagree, dunno
[20:37] <jussi01> I think what ikonia whas on about though, is that he wants a proceedure for if people are not going to be klined, but continue to cause a hassle in multiple ubuntu channels
[20:38] <topyli> yes that was his issue
[20:38] <Tm_T> jussi01: that, when they are trouble but not enough to warrant a k-line
[20:38] <Tm_T> a long time trouble
[20:38] <Pici> Thats what he said.
[20:38] <topyli> and i think the council should be able to help in these kinds of situations
[20:38] <jussi01> yes.
[20:39] <topyli> so we should write that down too
[20:39] <Tm_T> one situation seems to be gone since this was added to meeting agenda, btw, weird
[20:39] <Pici> I think that those issues need to come to us so that we can make the decision on them, rather than us making a decision now to cover future scenarios.
[20:39] <jussi01> SO, do we agree we should create a procedure?
[20:39] <topyli> of course we reserve the right to govern the ubuntu irc universe, but i would prefer it visible in writing somewhere
[20:39] <jussi01> topyli: +1
[20:40] <jussi01> again, i think this could be worked into the irc ops guidelines.
[20:40] <Tm_T> a procedure how IRCC can decide someone is trouble enough to warrant a namespace ban?
[20:40] <jussi01> Tm_T: namespace ban is not it. core channel ban is more what we are talking about
[20:40] <topyli> Tm_T, something like that. the ircc reserves the right to make exceptions in exceptional cases
[20:40] <Pici> I don't think that these sorts of issues can be boiled down into procedures. +1 topyli
[20:41] <jussi01> topyli: again +1
[20:41] <topyli> we will document this on the op guidelines page?
[20:41] <Tm_T> jussi01: core channels alone might not be enough (:
[20:42] <jussi01> topyli: make a vote.
[20:42] <topyli> yeah
[20:43] <topyli> [VOTE] blanket or pre-emptive bans continue to be forbidden. this will be documented properly on the ops guidelines page
[20:43] <MootBot> Please vote on:  blanket or pre-emptive bans continue to be forbidden. this will be documented properly on the ops guidelines page.
[20:43] <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
[20:43] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:43] <topyli> i'll create another vote on the exceptions
[20:43] <topyli> +1
[20:43] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:43] <jussi01> +1
[20:43] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi01. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:43] <Pici> +1
[20:43] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:43] <nhandler> +1
[20:43] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:43] <topyli> [AGREED]
[20:43] <MootBot> AGREED received:
[20:43] <topyli> gah
[20:43] <Pici> oh well
[20:43] <Tm_T> good decision, thanks
[20:44] <jussi01> topyli: got to end the vote
[20:44] <jussi01> [endvote]
[20:44] <jussi01> iirc
[20:44] <topyli> [ENDVOTE]
[20:44] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[20:44] <topyli> thanks :)
[20:44] <jussi01> :)
[20:44] <m4v> I have a question, was the vote of last meeting resolved? the one about -ops idling policy
[20:45] <Pici> No
[20:45] <nhandler> Pici: It was
[20:45] <nhandler> The 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. was 3 _1s to 1 +1
[20:45] <Pici> nhandler: tsimpson voted?
[20:45] <nhandler> Pici: We had 3 -1's that is the majority of the total council in agreement
[20:45] <Pici> bah.
[20:46] <topyli> [VOTE] the ircc reserves the right to make exceptions on exceptional problem users, and this will be properly documented on the ops guidelines page
[20:46] <MootBot> Please vote on:  the ircc reserves the right to make exceptions on exceptional problem users, and this will be properly documented on the ops guidelines page.
[20:46] <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
[20:46] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:46] <jussi01> +1
[20:46] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi01. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:46] <Pici> +1
[20:46] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:46] <topyli> +1
[20:46] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:46] <nhandler> +1
[20:46] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:46] <topyli> [ENDVOTE]
[20:46] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[20:47] <topyli> shall we give action items, or fight among ourselves about the ops page?
[20:47] <topyli> i suggest the latter
[20:47] <jussi01> topyli: its something everyone needs to contribute to
[20:47] <topyli> yeah
[20:47] <jussi01> but the action needs to be that someone will lead the effort
[20:47] <Pici> Which page?
[20:47] <jussi01> so who wants to drive it?
[20:47] <jussi01> Pici: ops guidelines
[20:47] <topyli> Pici, the ops guidelines page
[20:48] <Pici> nevermind, I was confused for a moment.
[20:48] <topyli> it's in a rather good state as it is, but we need these things there
[20:48] <Pici> I'll do it.
[20:48] <jussi01> I think we need to have a suggested edits pge or so for it. so the community can also point out things
[20:49] <topyli> [ACTION] Pici to lead the update of the operator guidelines page
[20:49] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Pici to lead the update of the operator guidelines page
[20:49] <jussi01> both that ant the irc guidelines page.
[20:49] <Tm_T> erm, will the exceptions procedure be public?
[20:49] <jussi01> Tm_T: es, on the ops guidelines page
[20:49] <jussi01> yes
[20:50] <jussi01> topyli: is that it for the agenda?
[20:50] <Tm_T> I mean, will the discussion and decision be public?
[20:50] <topyli> jussi01, yes
[20:50] <Tm_T> all the dirty details and that
[20:50] <jussi01> Tm_T: its wording only now. decision was made above, no?
[20:50] <topyli> Tm_T, you mean will the ircc discuss problem users and what to do with them publicly? no
[20:51] <Tm_T> topyli: that's what I meant, thanks (:
[20:51] <jussi01> ok, so anyone got any last minute things they want to bring up?
[20:52] <topyli> i haven't heard that for a while jussi01. we've been quick :)
[20:52] <jussi01> :)
[20:52] <jussi01> well, I think we are done, no?
[20:52] <topyli> i'll end the meeting. we can discuss of course
[20:52] <Pici> yessir
[20:52] <topyli> #endmeeting
[20:52] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:52.
[20:52] <jussi01> topyli: will you post minutes to the wiki and ML?
[20:52] <topyli> thanks everyone, this was rather productive
[20:52] <topyli> jussi01, i'll do it
[20:53] <jussi01> excellent. :)
[20:54] <Tm_T> thanks all, good meeting