[18:03] <jussi01> o/
[19:04] <jussi01> o/
[19:04] <topyli> o/
[19:04] <tsimpson> o/
[19:05] <jussi01> nhandler: ?
[19:05] <jussi01> tsimpson: you are chairing ;)
[19:05] <tsimpson> I guess...
[19:05] <tsimpson> if I can remember how to
[19:06] <tsimpson> #startmeeting
[19:06] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:06. The chair is tsimpson.
[19:06] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:06] <tsimpson> [TOPIC] Discuss what the floodbots are and are not for, why operators should not become reliant on them
[19:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss what the floodbots are and are not for, why operators should not become reliant on them
[19:06] <jussi01> right. :)
[19:07] <tsimpson> so, this one is really just a "reminder" of what those bots are and are not
[19:07] <tsimpson> I'll probably send an email about this too, but here it goes
[19:07] <tsimpson> the FloodBots are not operators, they are just code with no common-sense
[19:08] <tsimpson> the operators in a channel with the bots should monitor the bots (and be in the monitor channel)
[19:08] <tsimpson> the bots may mute someone for flooding, but you still need to look out for repeat flooders/trolls
[19:09] <tsimpson> and when the bots ban someone on notice, one of the ops should really start a dialogue with the user to see if it was an error
[19:09] <jussi01> Yes, this definately needs to go to email.
[19:09] <jussi01> and probably be added to the op guidelines
[19:10] <tsimpson> basically, the bots are just tools and they do make mistakes, it's the job of the operators to monitor and correct their mistakes when necessary
[19:10] <topyli> agreed, operators must understand this
[19:11] <jussi01> ok, so shall we say bring it to the list and add to the guidelines?
[19:11] <tsimpson> yep, a quick email and something in the guidelines
[19:12] <jussi01> Ok, tsimpson are you going to do it then?
[19:12] <tsimpson> I'll send the email
[19:12] <topyli> tsimpson, maybe you should just say what you just said in mail and throw it to the wiki too
[19:12] <jussi01> should we have a vote here?
[19:12] <tsimpson> on the guidelines update, probably
[19:12] <jussi01> tsimpson: can you make a vote then ? :D
[19:13] <tsimpson> trying to phrase it properly
[19:13] <tsimpson> [VOTE] the operator guidelines should be updated to include information on the floodbots
[19:13] <MootBot> Please vote on:  the operator guidelines should be updated to include information on the floodbots.
[19:13] <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
[19:13] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:13] <tsimpson> +1
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:13] <jussi01> +1
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi01. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:13] <topyli> +1
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:13] <jussi01> Excellent. :)
[19:14] <tsimpson> #endvote
[19:14] <jussi01> I wonder where nhandler is...
[19:14] <tsimpson> [endvote]
[19:14] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:14] <tsimpson> we have 3+, so...
[19:14] <topyli> jussi01, he did say he became uncertain if he'll be back in time from wherever he had to go
[19:14] <tsimpson> [AGREED] the operator guidelines should be updated with information regarding the floodbots
[19:14] <MootBot> AGREED received:  the operator guidelines should be updated with information regarding the floodbots
[19:15] <jussi01> topyli: ok
[19:15] <tsimpson> [AGREED] tsimpson to send an email to the mailing list with information on the floodbots
[19:15] <MootBot> AGREED received:  tsimpson to send an email to the mailing list with information on the floodbots
[19:15] <jussi01> Whats next?
[19:15] <topyli> the core thing
[19:15] <tsimpson> [TOPIC] Define what our core channels are and what makes a channel 'core'
[19:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Define what our core channels are and what makes a channel 'core'
[19:16] <topyli> so i saw you guys having a good discussion earlier. the email discussion did not amount to an internet-wide debate
[19:16] <jussi01> [19:19:52] <tsimpson> I'm thinking something like: A core channel is defined as an official channel in one of the following categories: * Support for an official Ubuntu derivative; * Main development channel for an official Ubuntu derivative; * Main off-topic/discussion channel for an official Ubuntu derivative; * Official IRC management related channel; The IRCC have the final say as to if a channel is considered a "core channel" and may,
[19:16] <jussi01>  on occasion, add channels t
[19:16] <jussi01> [19:19:53] <tsimpson> o the list that do not fall into the above categories
[19:17] <jussi01> that is pretty close to what I think^^
[19:17] <topyli> i like what that amounts to. we pretty much have the list or core channels now, but we weed to formally define it. we also need the final say
[19:18] <tsimpson> this is what I got, a bit more refined: (flood)
[19:18] <tsimpson> A core channel is defined as an official channel in one of the following categories:
[19:18] <tsimpson>  * Support for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative
[19:18] <tsimpson>  * Main development channel for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative
[19:18] <tsimpson>  * Main off-topic/discussion channel for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative
[19:18] <tsimpson>  * Official IRC management related channel
[19:18] <tsimpson> The IRCC have the final say as to if a channel is considered a "core channel" and may, on occasion, add channels to the list that do not fall into the above categories.
[19:18] <jussi01> We would then need to add the mytbuntu and xubuntu and ubuntustudio devel chans.
[19:18] <Daviey> "The IRCC have the final say as to if a channel is considered a "core channel"" .. what if the channel doesn't *want* to be considered a core channel by the IRCC?
[19:19] <tsimpson> jussi01: that's what I changed it to "officially supported or officially recognised" as xubuntu is recognised
[19:20] <tsimpson> Daviey: why would they not?
[19:20] <ScottK> tsimpson: Does it matter?
[19:21] <topyli> Daviey, i can't see how a core channel can decide to not be core, say #ubuntu. the council must treat it as such
[19:21] <Daviey> tsimpson: it seems somewhat rude for the ircc to just say "it's ours"..without any promiseof discussion or even informing.. and because it's "final say", no grounds to say otherwise.
[19:21] <tsimpson> ScottK: only because I can't think of a reason why it would matter to them
[19:21] <ScottK> tsimpson: Perhaps not everyone is thrilled to have the IRCC take over their channels.
[19:22] <Daviey> tsimpson: #ubuntu-devel is an example of this.
[19:22] <tsimpson> ScottK: you assume the IRCC will take over anything
[19:23] <tsimpson> the IRCC is responsible for Ubuntu's IRC channels, why should we not decide if a channel is core?
[19:26] <jussi01> Daviey: This can be discussed and revised. However, we have been delegated the duty to sort this out, so we are doing this. We havent had any complaint from Ubuntu devel saying otherwise.
[19:26] <Daviey> hah, "we are doing this" .. why even have it in the meeting if it is already decided?
[19:26] <jussi01> Daviey: the meeting is part of doing this...
[19:27] <Daviey> jussi01: it seems it's already done.
[19:27] <topyli> we do need to decide on whether or not to create a definition based on the above musings. this should be done in a meeting
[19:28] <topyli> so let's
[19:28] <guntbert> Daviey: the point of a meeting is to have proposals and to discuss/accept/decline them ...
[19:28] <tsimpson> Daviey: why, specifically, would #ubuntu-devel object to being considered a core channel?
[19:28] <topyli> guntbert, we've provide plenty of time to give feedback and suggestions on the mailing list
[19:28] <topyli> provided
[19:29] <ScottK> tsimpson: What would that be fixing that's broken?
[19:29] <guntbert> topyli: agreed - I wasn't critizing the agenda :)
[19:29] <Daviey> tsimpson: from history, it already has
[19:29] <Tm_T> same
[19:30] <Tm_T> the definition should include " * A channel that IRCC is been asked to include and has decided to include" ?
[19:30] <Tm_T> ah, there
[19:30] <jussi01> Daviey: From my discussions with Colin, there hasnt been an issue. Is there something you would like to bring up?
[19:30] <Tm_T> Daviey: and falls into those defined categories?
[19:30] <Daviey> Tm_T: that solves my issue.
[19:30] <Tm_T> I think the additions outside of those categories needs to ask to be included, or IRCC cannot act
[19:30] <topyli> ScottK, the council has been unable to answer the simple question, "what is a core channel and how to become one?" and we felt that was a problem worth soslving
[19:31] <Daviey> jussi01: no.. i'm saying that from the past, it has been an issue.
[19:31] <Tm_T> Daviey: you mean additions there, not currently considered channels, right?
[19:31] <Tm_T> ScottK: take over?
[19:31] <jussi01> Daviey: and We have a new ircc since then, and things seem to be going fairly smoothly over there.
[19:32] <Tm_T> tsimpson: but if you decide what is core...
[19:32] <Daviey> jussi01: yes.. but the definition isn't limited to #ubuntu-devel
[19:32] <Tm_T> tsimpson: technically you could define it broad enough to contain all ubuntu channels (:
[19:32] <topyli> Tm_T, we define it, we don't make it so
[19:32] <tsimpson> Tm_T: that's why we are defining it here, so we have something to refer to
[19:32] <jussi01> Daviey: Is there an issue we should know about here? has something happened that we have missed?
[19:33] <Daviey> jussi01: no
[19:33] <Tm_T> I think the dialogue is needed when adding new channels yes, especially when they doesn't fall in one of those categories
[19:33] <Tm_T> but for current core channels, no new discussion round to be needed I think
[19:33] <ScottK> Some of you will recall that #kubuntu-devel did not initially react well to the arrival of the IRCC.
[19:34] <tsimpson> and we discussed the issues they had and came to a resolution
[19:35] <Daviey> but the changes which are being done, doesn't mandate a discussion
[19:35] <tsimpson> the main issue, as I recall, was that they thought the IRCC was taking over all management of the channel, which is not the case
[19:35] <Daviey> it's outlining "we own you, if we decide, and there is nothing you can do"
[19:35] <Tm_T> tsimpson: topyli: ye
[19:35] <jussi01> I think the idea here is that there will be core ops available across a certain set of channels. This was asked for by Mark. We understand that devel channels act differently to support channels, so there are 2 groups of core ops.
[19:36] <Tm_T> ScottK: true, mostly because it wasn't discussed beforehand, we are not changing anything for it
[19:36] <ScottK> Sounds like this core channel thing is more of the same.
[19:36] <ScottK> You are one and there's nothing you can do.
[19:36] <Tm_T> Daviey: being a core channel isn't about owning in my mind
[19:37] <topyli> Tm_T, we have called for discussion on the mailing list
[19:37] <topyli> mostly because very long debates are very convenient when the meeting is already on and we should decide
[19:37] <Tm_T> true
[19:38] <ScottK> Just keep in mind that 'the mailing list' only gets you a very narrow slice of the Ubuntu community involved in the discussion.
[19:39] <topyli> it gets the irc team, which is a good population for discussions such as this
[19:40] <ScottK> Just don't expect people not on the IRC team to automatically agree with what you've decided among yourselves.
[19:41] <topyli> all users of ubuntu irc channels are not expected to agree with us
[19:42] <jussi01> Ok, so to the task at hand. Are there any other issues with the idea tsimpson put up?
[19:44] <topyli> no. we can always refine the wording so it's nice and ambiguous, but i'm happy with it
[19:44] <Tm_T> same
[19:45] <tsimpson> so let's vote
[19:45] <tsimpson> [VOTE] add the definition of a "core channel" to the /IRC/IrcTeam/Scope wiki document
[19:45] <MootBot> Please vote on:  add the definition of a "core channel" to the /IRC/IrcTeam/Scope wiki document.
[19:45] <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
[19:45] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:45] <topyli> +1
[19:45] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:46] <tsimpson> +1
[19:46] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:46]  * tsimpson pokes jussi01
[19:46] <jussi01> sorry
[19:46] <jussi01> so thats core channel as specified above?
[19:46] <topyli> yep
[19:46] <jussi01> or just adding it in general?
[19:46] <jussi01> ok
[19:47] <tsimpson> yeah, it can always be modified later
[19:47] <jussi01> +1
[19:47] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi01. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:47] <tsimpson> [endvote]
[19:47] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:47] <tsimpson> [AGREED] add the definition of a "core channel" to the /IRC/IrcTeam/Scope wiki document
[19:47] <MootBot> AGREED received:  add the definition of a "core channel" to the /IRC/IrcTeam/Scope wiki document
[19:48] <jussi01> Just want to say, for Daviey and ScottK and others, Please dont hesitate to bring things up you want to see changed - even if they are written on the wiki. its not a stone wiki :D We promise to have a look at the situation and listen to things that are vbrought up.
[19:48] <tsimpson> I think that's it, unless anyone has any other (short) issues?
[19:48] <jussi01> We may not agree, but we can talk about it.
[19:49] <topyli> shall we action that to someone, or will we fight about it later?
[19:50] <tsimpson> @random jussi01 tsimpson topyli
[19:50] <tsimpson> I guess it's you :)
[19:50] <topyli> brilliang :)
[19:50] <tsimpson> if that's it then, I'll end the meeting
[19:50] <topyli> fair enough, i'll add it. as is, and we go polish as needed
[19:50] <jussi01> thats it from me
[19:51] <tsimpson> #endmeeting
[19:51] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:51.
[19:51] <topyli> oh one more thing
[19:51] <topyli> not really of course :)
[19:52] <jussi01> tsimpson: remember to do the minutes and stuff.
[19:52] <Tm_T> thanks tsimpson and others