[03:32] <Smex> nite folks.
[17:54] <abbra_kadabbra> any forum council members happen to be on?
[17:55] <abbra_kadabbra> I sent a mail to the mailing list but the spam blocker quarantined it.  I just want to know if it finally went through
[18:07] <abbra_kadabbra> ping
[18:13] <persia> This channel generally only has traffic for scheduled meetings.  You'd do better to find a more specific channel (e.g. #ubuntuforums), or wait for the folks you want to have their scheduled meeting.
[18:16] <abbra_kadabbra> thanks
[19:00]  * Pici yawns
[19:00] <jussi> o/
[19:00] <topyli> hi
[19:01] <jussi> have we a tsimpson?
[19:01] <guntbert> thats infectious Pici
[19:01] <topyli> tsimpson was doubtful yesterday
[19:01] <jussi> shall we start in any case? we have 3 of us...
[19:02] <jussi> #startmeeting
[19:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:02. The chair is jussi.
[19:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:02] <jussi> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:03] <jussi> [topic] #ubuntu-release-party access list
[19:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  #ubuntu-release-party access list
[19:03] <jussi> ikonia: about?
[19:03] <Pici> I don't think he needs to be here for this one.
[19:04] <jussi> right, so someone want to summarise for the record?
[19:05] <Pici> There are a large number of people on the access list in u-r-p, it was crazy last time around.
[19:05] <jussi> So remove the @ubuntu/member access?
[19:06] <Pici> Its open to ubuntu/member/* right now.  Lots of those people are not normally operators
[19:06] <Pici> (laggin here)
[19:06] <persia> Was there significant abuse of that right, or just a crazy number of operators?
[19:06] <Pici> "The last party channel was a very rowdy channel and a strong portition of the ubuntu member cloak holders where not mature enough to manage the channel without playing silly games. I understand the channel is supposed to be a fun place but kicking people for fun and placing bans in a channel is not part of that fun. I would suggest adding the core channel operators to the list and removing the membership cloak access."
[19:07] <Pici> * from the agenda proposal page.
[19:07] <topyli> tsimpson suggested restricting it to core channel ops, since we have no core ops yet
[19:07] <jussi> [idea]I would suggest adding the core channel operators to the list and removing the membership cloak access (ikonia)
[19:07] <MootBot> IDEA received: I would suggest adding the core channel operators to the list and removing the membership cloak access (ikonia)
[19:08] <jussi> I think thats a good idea, basically replicating the -ops +v list with +o instead.
[19:08] <topyli> ah, same suggestion :)
[19:08] <topyli> nhandler said he has a script to copy an access list from one channel to another. this would help if we decide to go that way
[19:09] <jussi> topyli: yes, and then make sure that everyone is op, not just +v.
[19:10] <Pici> Sounds good to me.
[19:10] <topyli> yeah
[19:10] <jussi> ok, lets vote on that...
[19:11] <topyli> question
[19:11] <Pici> answer.
[19:11] <topyli> i haven't been to the channel in a few years, too old
[19:11] <topyli> is that enough ops for the channel?
[19:11] <jussi> topyli: I think so.
[19:12] <jussi> if its not, we can revisit the idea.
[19:12] <Daviey> I'm actually more concerned about the point that Ubuntu Members haven't been acting in a proper way previously.
[19:12] <topyli> jussi, ok, i'm going to believe you :)
[19:12] <Pici> I think we should allow for common sense when adding ops on-the-fly
[19:12] <jussi> [vote] add the core channel operators to the list (#ubuntu-ops +V list) and removing the membership cloak access
[19:12] <MootBot> Please vote on:  add the core channel operators to the list (#ubuntu-ops +V list) and removing the membership cloak access.
[19:12] <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
[19:12] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:12] <Pici> Daviey: Its more that they're not used to operator duties.
[19:13] <Pici> and the problems that come along with that.
[19:13] <Pici> +1
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:13] <jussi> +1
[19:13] <topyli> +1
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:13] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:13] <jussi> [endvote]
[19:13] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:13] <ikonia> jussi: yes
[19:13] <jussi> awesome. now then:
[19:14] <jussi> [topic] Consider deactivating/re-purposing the ~ubuntu-irc team on launchpad
[19:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  Consider deactivating/re-purposing the ~ubuntu-irc team on launchpad
[19:14] <jussi> [idea] As for ~ubuntu-irc, I haven't seen any good ideas on how to re-purpose it right now, so I would propose removing all members, making it restricted, and adjusting the description to "disable" it for now (nhandler)
[19:14] <MootBot> IDEA received:  As for ~ubuntu-irc, I haven't seen any good ideas on how to re-purpose it right now, so I would propose removing all members, making it restricted, and adjusting the description to "disable" it for now (nhandler)
[19:15] <topyli> i have heard anyone come up with a viable use for it so far
[19:15] <jussi> so, thoughts on this?
[19:15] <topyli> have not, even
[19:15] <ikonia> could it not be used for irc related dicussion ?
[19:15] <jussi> ikonia: the LP group?
[19:16] <ikonia> oh, sorry the actual group, miss-read
[19:16] <jussi> :)
[19:16] <jussi> Im with nhandler here.
[19:16] <Pici> I'd like to see it eventually turn into our irc-community participants group. Since we currently don't have any way of quantifying that.
[19:16] <ikonia> Pici: could you expand on that a little for me please ?
[19:17] <jussi> I dont think we need to come up with exactly what it needs to become in the future, but just that for now it should be disabled.
[19:17] <Pici> ikonia: Its a bit vauge, but we don't have a group right now that includes people in our communtiy that partipate that are not operators.
[19:17] <persia> Pici: So a container for the polity that e.g. votes to confirm IRCC?
[19:18] <ikonia> Pici: perfect, thank you
[19:18] <jussi> Yeah, we are working on the membership thing, but that still excludes a lot.
[19:18] <Pici> persia: yes.
[19:18] <Pici> jussi: Yes, but its a start.  We have nothing now.
[19:18] <topyli> Pici, i like that
[19:18] <Pici> Besides operators.
[19:18] <jussi> yes
[19:19] <persia> You might just set to be a moderated team, disable anyone not in ~ubuntumembers, and process the join requests e.g. weekly based on membership in ~ubuntumembers.
[19:19] <jussi> ok, so the thought is that we disable it for now and think about what it should become, perhaps with some public discussion on the list?
[19:19] <persia> But I'd recommend checking with the CC about polity definition: there may be reasons to poll the entirety of ~ubuntumembers, even though some folk are rarely on IRC.
[19:20] <jussi> persia: the CC dont want us polling all of them
[19:20] <Pici> I don't see value in closing it and deactivating its members.
[19:21]  * persia stops attempting to get folk to repeat history
[19:21] <jussi> Pici: why?
[19:21] <persia> For what it's worth, I agree with Pici: I think that's needlessly disruptive if the purpose remains undefined.
[19:21] <Pici> Agreed.
[19:22] <jussi> thing is, for me, we need to create a clean slate. Its currently confusing to people - I had someone PM just yesterday (ne op in a loco) asking if they should join it.
[19:23] <Pici> jussi: Everyone who is in it right now should be in it if we turn it into a 'community users' group.
[19:23] <topyli> i guess the current members of the group would be included in any larger group we imagine
[19:24] <Pici> If we aren't sure what to do with it at this juncture, then I suggest that we change it's description to say that.
[19:24] <jussi> ok, so perhaps not cleaning it out, but putting something in the description?
[19:24] <jussi> lol
[19:24] <Pici> :)
[19:24] <jussi> great minds
[19:24] <jussi> ok, Id agree with that.
[19:25] <topyli> "Ubuntu IRC thingy"
[19:25] <jussi> [vote] Change the description of ~ubuntu-irc to reflect its current state of disuse, think about the future use of it.
[19:25] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Change the description of ~ubuntu-irc to reflect its current state of disuse, think about the future use of it..
[19:25] <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
[19:25] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:25] <jussi> +1
[19:25] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:25] <Pici> +1
[19:25] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:25] <topyli> +1
[19:25] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:26] <jussi> [endvote]
[19:26] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:26] <jussi> ok, great. next item:
[19:26] <jussi> [topic] Create policy on external logging of channels (ircanswers.com)
[19:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Create policy on external logging of channels (ircanswers.com)
[19:27] <Pici> Can anyone give some backstory on what this is.  I only caught part of the conversation in u-irc.
[19:27] <jussi> So, I think as long as a party requests it and is not malicious, there is no reason to say no.
[19:27] <jussi> Pici: go look at the url ;)
[19:28] <Pici> jussi: It looks like a metabot-like thing.
[19:28] <Pici> but on a website
[19:28] <jussi> Pici: it basically is metabot transcribed to the web
[19:28] <jussi> :D
[19:28] <Pici> jussi: stop that!
[19:28] <jussi> hehe
[19:28] <topyli> the ircanswers.com owner/maintainer realised he should ask permission to use our logs, and did so
[19:29] <jussi> yes, because freenode klined him
[19:29] <Pici> oh?
[19:29] <ikonia> why should we allow 3rd party bots to log in #ubuntu channels ?
[19:29] <topyli> we have a precedent from 2007, when irseek was discussed
[19:29] <jussi> ikonia: why not?
[19:29] <ikonia> jussi: because ubuntu logs the channels publicly, those logs are available, why invite others
[19:30] <ikonia> those are the official logs - use them or do not, but having more and more bots to log channels opens the door
[19:30] <ikonia> why would we allow some, and not others
[19:30] <jussi> the thing is, whether they pull from own logs or the web logs makes no difference, except a bit of server loat, no?
[19:30] <topyli> ikonia, for arguments aready used in a similar matter, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/IRSeekDiscussion
[19:30] <ikonia> we provide official logs - they are there for public use
[19:30] <ikonia> ok - so I disagree with that argument totally
[19:31] <Pici> ikonia: why?
[19:31] <ikonia> Pici: why can they not use the logs we provide, why do they have to hav a bot
[19:31] <ikonia> have even
[19:31] <ikonia> the precidence is set, if we allow ircseek we have to allow others
[19:31] <ikonia> what makes them special
[19:32] <topyli> i guess their bot parses the logs nicely for their use. who knows, that's their business
[19:32] <ikonia> I thought one of the reason we provide logs is to stop this sort of argument
[19:32] <topyli> ikonia, we will allow others
[19:32] <ikonia> topyli: I have no issue with them parsing the logs, but not running a bot
[19:32] <ikonia> topyli: why ?
[19:32] <jussi> ikonia: we want to advance ubuntu, not hold it back. I dont see anything about this that is bad for our community?
[19:32] <ikonia> topyli: where it the line, how many ?
[19:32] <ikonia> jussi: why would this not advance ubuntu,
[19:32] <ikonia> why would the policy of use the official logs be a holding back of ubuntu ?
[19:33] <ikonia> from trusted sources
[19:33] <Pici> ikonia: Why is having other people log #ubuntu an issue?
[19:33]  * persia notes that sometimes the official logbots miss a couple days in one channel or another
[19:33] <topyli> a trusted source is no guarantee of the integrity of the service. whether they use our logs or their own makes no difference
[19:34] <ikonia> Pici: because you could end up with a channel of bots
[19:34] <ikonia> Pici: there is a no unofficial bot policy in ubuntu, and it works well
[19:34] <jussi> The fact is, that we can say, yes, you can have your bot there, as long as you ask nicely and promise not to be nasty, or the person can go grab logs from canonical and eat bandwidth. this way, we know who is doing it.
[19:34] <ikonia> Pici: how do you know what these bots that log do apart from log ?
[19:34] <ikonia> jussi: no you don't know who's doing it or what else it's doing
[19:34] <Pici> jussi: +1
[19:35] <ikonia> jussi: the canonical logs are there to BE parsed
[19:36] <jussi> ikonia: as long as the bot/irssi+script/whatever is silent, how does that harm us? if we do it this way, we know which bots are logging and we can keep an eye on them
[19:37] <ikonia> jussi: I disagree, but I'm not going to die if you impliment this. It just seems to go %100 turn around on the no official bots policy to "all silent bots welcome"
[19:37] <jussi> we also find out more about different ubuntu sites, and we make it easier for people to spread ubuntu.
[19:37] <ikonia> how are we interested in different ubuntu sites
[19:37] <ikonia> that's nothing to do with irc council
[19:37] <jussi> ikonia: no, silent bots welcome with permission.
[19:37] <Pici> ikonia: no, its "silent bots welcome as long as we know about them"
[19:37] <jussi> lol
[19:37] <Pici> o...
[19:38] <ikonia> how are these bots to be tracked ?
[19:38] <jussi> We can use the wiki for a list of approved logging bots.
[19:38] <guntbert> I'm more comfortable with ikonia's approach -- everybody can parse the official logs
[19:38] <ikonia> I assume we'll need a tracking page, with bot owner contact details and rules such as must be authenticated against freenode ?
[19:39] <Pici> guntbert: But that way we don't know who is parsing those logs.  This way we do.
[19:39] <jussi> ikonia: we already have such a page for official bots
[19:39] <jussi> ikonia: so replicating that for extrnal logging bots wont be too hard.
[19:39] <ikonia> jussi: yes, but I'm talking about making that more official, with rules such as must be authenticated against freenode, must have an active email account etc, crterial
[19:39] <jussi> or even just adding a section
[19:39] <ikonia> critera
[19:40] <ikonia>  jussi the current approved bots are trusted, these new ones will not be, hence why I'm suggesting rules and guidelines
[19:40] <jussi> ikonia: yes, thats what I was thinking also. this is about creating the poolicy for that.
[19:40] <guntbert> Pici: yes, but what good wolud that knowledge do? is there man/womanpower to check and recheck and look at the outcomes?
[19:41] <guntbert> *would
[19:42] <topyli> we can deal with someone asking permission, checking what they're doing, making sure they satisfy freenode's guidelines and saying 'ok'
[19:42] <jussi> I think we need to specify that any logs taken need to go into the public domain.
[19:43] <ikonia> why ?
[19:43] <Pici> There isn't any manpower being wasted on the bots that we do know about.
[19:43] <ikonia> what is the point of allowing bots to log and then put in the public domain the same as the offical logs?  once they log the data they can do what they want with it
[19:43] <jussi> and we need to of course run this by canonicals legal dept
[19:44] <ikonia> again - why ? we make the logs public
[19:44] <Pici> I don't see any reason to say anything about the logs themselves.  They are already in the public domain.
[19:44] <ikonia> exactly, suggesting I have to public logs when I may want them for a private application development test is wrong
[19:45] <Pici> jussi: They're public domain, that means that anyone can do with them as they please. They are not being released under a license with specific terms.
[19:45] <jussi> right
[19:45] <topyli> we can't demand anything regarding the logs
[19:45] <Pici> So we cannot tell Joe Botowner that he needs to release his logs under the public-domain as well.
[19:46] <Amaranth> What channels will they be allowed to log?
[19:46] <Pici> Amaranth: good question.
[19:46] <Pici> I say only the core support channels.
[19:46] <Amaranth> Everything? Everything but -offtopic? Only #ubuntu? etc
[19:46] <jussi> I say the same conditions as irseek
[19:46] <Pici> Plus #ubuntu-meeting
[19:47] <Pici> s/meeting/classroom/
[19:47] <topyli> Amaranth, the irseek decision page says: 1) channels with 'UbuntuIrcCouncil as contact, 2) already publically logged
[19:47] <Amaranth> irseek was only allowed to log channels ubuntubot is in then, right?
[19:47] <jussi> This initial permission extends only to channels satisfying the following conditions:
[19:47] <jussi> Channel has 'ubuntuirccouncil' as contact with chanserv.
[19:47] <jussi> Channel is already logged at irclogs.ubuntu.com by 'ubuntulog'
[19:47] <jussi> The IRSeek bot must also satisfy the freenode guidelines, mainly it should not be torified and should be easily identifiable by nickname.
[19:47] <jussi> Amaranth: correct
[19:47] <topyli> ok now you're doing it to me too
[19:47] <Pici> gag
[19:47] <Pici> er, hah
[19:47] <Amaranth> hehe
[19:47] <Pici> or gag too, thats fitting.
[19:48] <ScottK> IRC logs are not public domain.
[19:48] <Amaranth> Don't we delay the logs though?
[19:48] <ScottK> At least in the US.
[19:48] <ikonia> ScottK: how can they not be, ubuntu posts them on a public website with no terms of use?
[19:49] <persia> I believe they are protected as public speech in most jurisdictions, which typically allows arbitrary use of content if the speaker was aware they were being recorded.
[19:49] <Amaranth> ikonia: That makes them "All rights reserved"
[19:49] <Pici> They aren't posted to a website in the US...
[19:49]  * persia could be mistaken
[19:49] <ikonia> Pici: ahh, so the domain location is key
[19:49]  * Pici shrugs
[19:49] <ScottK> Hard to say, but in the US it's almost impossible for something created since Mickey Mouse to be public domain.
[19:49] <Pici> I am not a lawyer./
[19:49] <ScottK> It really just applies to a narrow category of works created by the government.
[19:50] <persia> Pici: The only places that don't default to "All Rights Reserved" are Nicaragua and Honduras, and they default to "Most Rights Reserved".
[19:50] <topyli> there's an extensive literature on public mailing lists, forum posts and irc logs, which i don't encourage anyone to read. in a nutshell, the consensus is those are public domain
[19:50] <jussi> but in anycase, we can consult canonical's legal eagles before actioning anything if need be.
[19:51] <persia> topyli: The consensus is that the are publically available on open fora.  Avoid saying "public domain" as it has a specific meaning which may not apply.
[19:51] <ScottK> topyli: What persia said.
[19:51] <Amaranth> So what if they put up logs faster than ubuntulog?
[19:52] <ScottK> I don't see that ubuntulog has any more or less rights to what I say on IRC than anyone else.
[19:52] <jussi> Amaranth: is there an issue there? do we delay the logs for any reason but practicality?
[19:52] <Amaranth> jussi: I don't know, that's my question, really
[19:52] <ScottK> If it's OK for ubuntulog to publish logs of what I say on IRC, then it's OK for anyone to do so.
[19:53] <jussi> Amaranth: afaik, its just that the cron job is hourly.
[19:53] <ikonia> maybe council should vote on concpet, then make rules later
[19:53] <topyli> so we take down our logs and start asking users to sign an agreement before publishing logs on ubuntulogs.org?
[19:53] <Pici> No
[19:53] <topyli> i didn't think so
[19:53] <persia> topyli: Check the ToS of freenode: I expect it covers the implicit agreement that comments may be logged.
[19:54] <jussi> yeah, the motd has something iirc
[19:54] <persia> (if it doesn't, that's a flaw, as lots of things that pretend to be humans log)
[19:54] <ScottK> But once again, ubuntulog doesn't have any special rights over any other logger
[19:54] <Pici> I say we replace the entrymsg with something that says that your logs may be published by the entities listed at $SOMEURL
[19:54] <jussi> ScottK: freenode says that people cant log unless they ask permission first
[19:55] <ScottK> jussi: That isn't what I said.
[19:55] <Pici> And at $SOMEURL, we list the people that have asked and have been granted permission.
[19:55] <jussi> ScottK: so yes, it does, it has permission.
[19:55] <ScottK> Mostly what I said is that the specific term public domain doesn't apply.
[19:55] <jussi> Pici: that makes sense.
[19:56] <ScottK> Pici: What gives you the right to give permission on my behalf?
[19:56] <ikonia> council, how about beyond logging bots, bots that are silent, such as the bridge bots of late, that have bridged #ubuntu to other irc networks ?
[19:56] <topyli> ScottK, i'll use another term once i think of one :)
[19:56] <ScottK> topyli: Good.
[19:57] <Pici> ScottK: If you can come up with a better idea, I'd love to hear it.
[19:58] <Pici> freenode's motd states that users should be informed of public logging by a channel entry message or channel topic.  I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this says that we are allowed to publically log channels.
[19:58] <ScottK> Pici: Mostly I think that if you try to come up with rules about who can log and what a log bot is, it's a minefield.
[19:58] <ScottK> Pici: Sounds like as long as such an entry message is present.
[19:58] <ikonia> ScottK: that was part of my point, easier to say, no bpts
[19:58] <ikonia> bots
[19:59] <ScottK> Of course that's just taking the logs.
[19:59] <ikonia> just maintain official bots
[19:59] <ScottK> The matter of publishing them and redistributing them is another question.
[19:59] <ikonia> I am interested to see views on the bots that do more than log, such as the bridge bots ?
[19:59] <ScottK> ikonia: So when I'm not connected to my quassel core, is it a bot?
[19:59] <jussi> - By connecting to freenode you indicate that you have read
[19:59] <jussi> - and agree to adhere to our policies and procedures as per
[19:59] <jussi> - the website (http://freenode.net). We would like to remind
[19:59] <jussi> - you that unauthorized public logging of channels on the
[19:59] <jussi> - network is prohibited. Public channel logging should only
[19:59] <jussi> - take place where the channel owner(s) has requested this
[19:59] <jussi> - and users of the channel are all made aware (if you are
[19:59] <jussi> - publically logging your channel, you may wish to keep a
[19:59] <jussi> - notice in topic and perhaps as a on-join message).
[19:59] <ikonia> ScottK: no more less than my /away log
[19:59] <jussi> Sorry for the paste, but its useful.
[20:00] <jussi> ScottK: its about publishing the logs.
[20:00] <ScottK> Right, so how is a bot different?
[20:00] <persia> That's the bit that protects freenode in jurisdictions that grant protection to public speech.  As noted, it's best practice to indicate a channel is logged, if the logs are to be published, as the lack of informed consent makes it unacceptable in most jurisdictions.
[20:01] <ikonia> ScottK: bots can do more, such as the bridge bots I'm refercing to
[20:01] <ikonia> ScottK: I have no issue with logging, it's public anyway, I'm more intereted in control of the bots and what "else" they do
[20:01] <Pici> ikonia: you're the only one discussing that though...
[20:01] <ScottK> OK.
[20:01] <persia> So, technically, it's essential to have notice in every channel in which the log bot is that it's logging each user.
[20:01] <persia> (in many places)
[20:01] <ikonia> Pici: if it's a non-valid point, I can leave it
[20:01] <persia> ubuntulog may not currently comply as much as one would like.
[20:01] <Pici> persia: Those should already be in place.
[20:02] <jussi> yes, if they you nice one that isnt, please let us know.
[20:02] <jussi> persia: remember the xubuntu is logged factoid request? ;)
[20:02] <persia> Pici: I know of counter-cases, but yes, *should*.  Point stands, that there should be a documented place that lists the loggers, which then gives them the special rights that ScottK asks about.  Other loggers souldn't be there.
[20:02] <Pici> persia: I agree, we should create that.
[20:03] <jussi> persia: exactly what we said 20 mins ago :)
[20:03] <persia> Yes.
[20:04] <jussi> ok, so a vote?
[20:05] <ikonia> jussi: before you vote, I'd like to know if this is just for logging bots, or any silent bot
[20:05] <Pici> er, this has always been about logging.
[20:05] <jussi> [vote] Public log bots be allowed with a set of conditions and list of bots documented on a wiki page
[20:05] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Public log bots be allowed with a set of conditions and list of bots documented on a wiki page.
[20:05] <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
[20:05] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:05] <ikonia> ok, thank you
[20:06] <Pici> +1
[20:06] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:06] <jussi> +1
[20:06] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:06] <topyli> +1
[20:06] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:06] <jussi> [endvote]
[20:06] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[20:06] <jussi> right, so who wants to get at least the bareboes of such a wiki page up?
[20:07] <topyli> could copy a skeleton from the irseek discussion page
[20:08] <jussi> yeah
[20:08] <persia> Might I suggest one additional rule: that channel operators are responsible for ensuring that public notice is provided if they allow the logbots (including ubuntulog) to enter their channels?
[20:09] <topyli> making sure the topic includes "channel is logged" would be good
[20:09] <Pici> persia: I believe that is already present on the wiki page regarding creating new channels.
[20:09] <Pici> We should double check though
[20:09] <jussi> yeah, i think Pici is right
[20:09] <persia> Pici: Yes, but it's not part of the logbot request process, which is the gap.
[20:09] <jussi> ok, anything else?
[20:09]  * persia knows lots of folk who created channels in the namespace who have only a passing famliarity with the guide
[20:10] <Pici> Who is doing the u-r-p stuff? That channel should probably be opened soon/now.
[20:10] <Pici> I've already heard a few questions about when it is supposed to open
[20:10] <jussi> Pici: you volunteering? or did nhandler say he could do it?
[20:10] <Pici> jussi: I'd be happy to do it in nhandler's absense./
[20:11] <gnomefreak> IRCC meeting?
[20:11] <nhandler> I can do it Pici
[20:11] <nhandler> Sorry for missing the meeting
[20:11] <jussi> gnomefreak: almost done
[20:11] <Pici> gnomefreak: just finishing.
[20:11] <jussi> lol
[20:11] <Pici> . . .
[20:11] <topyli> nhandler, just in time for volunteering for tasks!
[20:12] <nhandler> :)
[20:12] <jussi> I need to go. so Ill end the meeting, but feel free to sort stuff as needed
[20:12] <nhandler> I also noticed no action for updating ~ubuntu-irc. I can do that if nobody wants
[20:12] <Pici> nhandler: We had discussed copying the access list from -ops (those with +v) to u-r-p but to +o
[20:12] <nhandler> I saw
[20:12] <jussi> [endmeeting]
[20:12] <Pici> nhandler: Will your script do that? if not I'll do it manually.
[20:12] <nhandler> I can script that to save time
[20:12] <Pici> okay :)
[20:12] <nhandler> Pici: With a slight modification it should
[20:12] <jussi> #endmeeting
[20:12] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:12.
[20:13] <jussi> laters all
[20:13] <gnomefreak> while i have everyone here. any chance we can keep +1 open or at least open it when toolchain lands?
[20:13] <topyli> thanks gusy
[20:13] <ikonia> gnomefreak: yes please
[20:13] <nhandler> [action] nhandler to update release party access list
[20:13] <jussi> oh +1 to re-open when toolchain lands.
[20:13] <Pici> I say make it +im until the toolchain lands on... the 6th is it?
[20:13] <jussi> Pici: +1. now im gone
[20:14] <Pici> k :)
[20:14] <nhandler> I am fine with that Pici
[20:14] <gnomefreak> its win 3 for me and i know first 20 channels so it screws me uup :(
[20:14] <nhandler> Who wants the ~ubuntu-irc action?
[20:14] <Pici> nhandler: do you need to clear out the current access list, or will your script take care of that?
[20:14] <Pici> rather, need me to clear it out.
[20:14] <nhandler> Pici: I can take care of that
[20:14] <Pici> okay :)
[20:15] <topyli> i'll create the bot wiki thingy
[20:16] <topyli> we'll then hack it to pieces and remove my big fat "DRAFT" header
[20:16] <nhandler> topyli: Maybe just add a section to the already existing bot page
[20:16] <nhandler> [action] topyli to make bot list on wiki
[20:16] <topyli> nhandler, good idea, it's not that big
[20:16] <nhandler> [action] nhandler to update ~ubuntu-irc
[20:16] <nhandler> Who is doing minutes/updating wiki? jussi ?
[20:17] <Pici> I suppose.
[20:19] <topyli> traditionally, perks of the chair isn't it?