[21:01] <Pici> hi
[21:01] <nhandler> jussi, tsimpson, Pici, topyli:  Who is here for the meeting?
[21:01] <topyli> o/
[21:01] <nhandler> #startmeeting
[21:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:01. The chair is nhandler.
[21:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:01]  * Pici sits on nhandler 
[21:01] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Support channel bug parsing
[21:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Support channel bug parsing
[21:01] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[21:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[21:02] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[21:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[21:02] <nhandler> Pici: Care to briefly summarize this item?
[21:03] <Pici> I added this to the agenda firstly because kangaroo was so adamant about getting it enabled in #xubuntu
[21:04] <Pici> Secondly because we had it disabled because the host that ubottu was on originally wasn't that powerful, which was the reason *I* thought that bug parsing was disabled. Now, we're on a beefier host.
[21:04] <Pici> Feel free to correct me if I'm mistating things.
[21:04] <nhandler> So is there currently any technical reason for having it disabled?
[21:05] <topyli> i have no idea
[21:06] <Pici> I can't really think of a good non-technical reason for keeping it disabled either.
[21:06] <topyli> jussi called me earlier because he was uncertain if he can make the meeting and he definitely doesn't want it enabled
[21:06] <nhandler> topyli: Did he give a reason for not wanting it enabled?
[21:06] <Pici> Did he give a reason?
[21:07] <jussi> IM here for like 2 seconds
[21:07] <topyli> he doesn't think it's useful
[21:08] <topyli> jussi: oh, just in time. why don't you want the bot parsing bugs?
[21:08] <jussi> And the reason is that bugs in support channels add noise where there doesnt need to be noise.
[21:08] <nhandler> jussi: and do you know if there are any technical reasons not to have the bug links enabled?
[21:08] <jussi> nhandler: no technical reason, it waspart of the ubuntu is too noisy to be useful bug iirc.
[21:08] <jussi> there isnt a really good reason to have them on in a support channel
[21:09] <Pici> What about in #k and #x?
[21:09] <Pici> They aren't as busy and I know that #k gets a little bit of bug related issues, due to backports and people trying to install new kde ppas.
[21:09] <jussi> again, noise where no noise is really needed
[21:09] <nhandler> I would be interested in seeing how many times in a day and how often they would get used if enabled
[21:10] <nhandler> I find it hard to believe they would create more noise than say some of the more useless factoids we have
[21:10] <topyli> kangaroo predicts 0 to 2 times a day in #xubuntu
[21:10] <jussi> I dont think they are useful, but if you want them enabled then do so. I strongly suggest against it in #u.
[21:11] <Pici> I'm a bit iffy on it getting enabled in #u as well.
[21:11] <jussi> I need to go, but my vote is no to all core support chans
[21:11] <nhandler> I personally would be interested in enabling them for a trial run and just seeing how much noise they actually create
[21:11] <jussi> bye
[21:11] <nhandler> Bye jussi
[21:11] <topyli> jussi: have fun
[21:11] <Pici> byas
[21:12] <nhandler> Many times, if a bot doesn't respond with a link, I see other users simply go and copy/paste the link to the channel (creating the same amount of "noise")
[21:13] <topyli> well users referring to a bug probably have the bug report open in their browser and might as well paste the link in the first place
[21:13] <topyli> however, we're not changing users
[21:13] <nhandler> topyli: Well, the bot also includes some additional useful info in the message (status, package, etc)
[21:13] <nhandler> It would be a pain for a user to copy/paste all of that info
[21:13] <topyli> yeah
[21:14] <topyli> i liked the feature myself when it was still there
[21:14] <Pici> I'm willing to give it a trial run in #x and #k
[21:15] <nhandler> I also feel that the noise bug is less related to join/part messages and bot messages and more to the large number of users that are sending a large number of messages.
[21:15] <guntbert> I advocate against bug reports in pure support channels - they are noisy by themselves and generate addittional noise/discussions
[21:16] <nhandler> They generate noise, but what is the ratio of the bot's bug messages to the number of messages sent by normal users? My guess is a very small percent (and definitely less than the percent of messages made up by factoids)
[21:18] <nhandler> Alright, let's take this one step at a time. Are there any objections to trialing it in #k and #x for a few weeks?
[21:18] <topyli> i've been failing to form an opinion. maybe a trial period would be smart
[21:18] <guntbert> nhandler: its hard even now to prevent the start of off topic discussions - with those bug messages there might be still more effort needed to prevent needless dicussions
[21:19] <topyli> guntbert: sure, they can bring up discussions like "why is this bug still not fixed? developers suck"
[21:19] <Pici> argh. I keep typing my command to get to this channel in other ones.
[21:19] <guntbert> topyli: exactly
[21:20] <topyli> nhandler: how do we determine success and failure in the trial, if taken?
[21:20] <nhandler> Well, right now, this is just pure speculation. Until we actually trial it, there is no way to know what type of discussion the bug links will cause. But I find it hard to believe that the discussion will be much different than people who simply post bug numbers
[21:20] <Pici> I don't think that the bot parsing the bug is going to encourage people to do that any more than they already do.
[21:20] <guntbert> Pici: :) it seems you have a lot of channels open
[21:21] <nhandler> topyli: Well, the "noise" complaint can be looked at based on the numbers that we can pull from the logs
[21:21] <nhandler> The "off topic discussion" issue will be harder, but we can still look through the logs for the types of discussions that took place around the time a bug link was posted
[21:21] <topyli> that will tell us noise directly from the bot. would have to check how much offtopic discussion it generates
[21:22] <topyli> yeah
[21:22] <guntbert> nhandler: right now nearly nobody posts bug numbers in #ubuntu - I don't know about #xu and #ku though
[21:22] <nhandler> If the results look promising, we could expand the trial to #u. If not, we can disable it in #k and #x
[21:22] <nhandler> guntbert: Well, if not many people post them, then having it enabled wouldn't do much harm ;)
[21:23] <guntbert> nhandler: as there are several people who jump on anything - I expect that number to increase ...
[21:23] <topyli> i can agree to the trial. if it seems harmful, we'll just disable it again and try to keep the press out
[21:23] <Pici> Shall we vote?
[21:24] <Pici> On it being enabled for a trail run in #xubuntu and #kubuntu ?
[21:24] <nhandler> [vote] Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x.
[21:24] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x..
[21:24] <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
[21:24] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[21:24] <nhandler> +1
[21:24] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[21:24] <topyli> +1
[21:24] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[21:25] <Pici> +1
[21:25] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[21:25] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[21:25] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[21:25] <nhandler> [AGREED] Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand
[21:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Enable bug info retrieval in #xubuntu and #kubuntu for a trial period and re-evaluate the issue at our next meeting. If sucessful, expand
[21:25] <nhandler>                                trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x.
[21:26] <nhandler> Does someone want to take the action to look through the logs (at least for the noise) item and try to analyze it a bit?
[21:26] <topyli> if two weeks is enough, we can check on this  in the next meeting
[21:26] <Pici> I think it will be.
[21:26] <Pici> Especially because we're getting 10.04.1 this week.
[21:27] <nhandler> And does someone want to take the [ACTION] to actually enable the bug info in those channels?
[21:28] <Pici> I'm not sure if my bot access is working enough to do that
[21:28] <topyli> i could try grepping the logs before the next meeting
[21:28] <nhandler> Pici: I thought tsimpson gave us access. But if not, you could poke people with access (who know more about the bots than me) to get it enabled
[21:29] <Pici> I have a feeling our regulars will give us enough feedback.
[21:29] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to grep the logs of #k and #x before the next meeting to try and analyze the effect of having the bug info enabled
[21:29] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to grep the logs of #k and #x before the next meeting to try and analyze the effect of having the bug info enabled
[21:29] <nhandler> Pici: Probably
[21:29] <nhandler> Pici: But can you take the action to either directly or indirectly get the bug info enabled?
[21:29] <Pici> nhandler: Sure thing.
[21:30] <nhandler> Thanks a lot
[21:30] <nhandler> [ACTION] Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu
[21:30] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu
[21:30] <nhandler> Anything more for this item?
[21:30] <Pici> I'd also like to bring up another issue that I didn't put on the agenda.
[21:30] <nhandler> Pici: What is the issue?
[21:30] <Pici> About enabling bot features without discussion.
[21:31] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Enabling Bot Features without discussion
[21:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  Enabling Bot Features without discussion
[21:31] <nhandler> Pici: Go ahead
[21:32] <Pici> I think that this recent 'announce floodbot bans' thing in #ubuntu-ops should have been discussed on at least the mailing list, and possibly during an IRCC meeting.
[21:32] <Pici> s/the mailing list/on the mailing list/
[21:33] <nhandler> Well, I think certain things are safe to enable/implement without discussion, noisy channel notifications like that should have been brought up
[21:33] <topyli> this one has been annoying some ops
[21:34] <Pici> I think that any new features should be announced on the mailing list.
[21:35] <Pici> (it has been annoying me)
[21:36] <nhandler> I don't know about "any", but any visible/big changes or changes that will affect the workflow of OPs should probably be announced there
[21:36] <topyli> not a lot of work to do that
[21:37] <topyli> well that probably doesn't make sense. read: doing that is not a lot of work :)
[21:37] <nhandler> But I guess the question is, if someone voices an objection on the ML, should that mean that they don't go ahead with the feature?
[21:37] <Pici> I think it warrants discussion.
[21:39] <nhandler> Agreed. Since ubottu has been granted an exception to our no-bot policy, it should at least behave in a way we find acceptable.
[21:39] <Flannel> The current feature in question, can it simply be changed to normal channel messages in -ops-monitor instead?  That'd keep the utility of the feature, without the pings
[21:39] <nhandler> Flannel: From a technical point of view, I would think that would be trivial to do
[21:40] <topyli> maybe it would be useful for the bot devel team to communicate more on the ML, tell us what's cooking
[21:40] <Flannel> nhandler: From a non-technical standpoint, would it diminish the feature in any way?
[21:40] <Pici> Thats a reasonable expectation
[21:41] <nhandler> Flannel: It would make it less noticable (which can be seen as a bad ting)
[21:41] <Flannel> topyli: Personally, I'd love to hear more about what awesome features are being added and I can look forward to.
[21:41] <topyli> likewise
[21:41] <rww> or help implement, even
[21:41] <Pici> I think it would also encourage people to suggest new ideas.
[21:42] <nhandler> Does someone want to take the action of contacting the bot devs about this? I think we are all in agreement that a bit more communication would be nice.
[21:42] <topyli> do they have a mailing list?
[21:42] <nhandler> topyli: You could use the 'Contact this Team' feature on LP. I'm not sure if they have a ML
[21:43] <Pici> They have a channel
[21:43] <Pici> More than one.
[21:43] <topyli> yep
[21:44] <nhandler> So any volunteers for the action?
[21:45] <topyli> i can do it
[21:45] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication
[21:45] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication
[21:45] <nhandler> Any more topics to discuss?
[21:46] <topyli> bshellz maybe
[21:46] <topyli> they have a blanket ban on #ubuntu, #x, #k at least, it's used for ban evasion regularly
[21:46] <topyli> or so i've been told
[21:47] <nhandler> [TOPIC] bshellz
[21:47] <MootBot> New Topic:  bshellz
[21:47] <Pici> I think ikonia knows the most about that
[21:47] <topyli> recently a blanket ban has been requested for -server as well
[21:47] <topyli> ikonia yes
[21:48] <nhandler> I haven't been that on-top-of this issue. Any estimates on the number of legit users that use bshellz vs. the number of evaders?
[21:49] <rww> I think a lot of the legit users moved off it when it was k-lined completely for a while. I know I did.
[21:49] <nhandler> I don't like blanket bans in general, but I would be interested in knowing if it would be easier to blacklist evaders or to whitelist legit users (+e)
[21:51] <topyli> i'm under the impression that their admins are not keen on "policing" their users
[21:52] <nhandler> Well, it loos like ikonia is /away right now. Do you think this might be a good topic for the ML? That way, we could get info from other OPs and users before making a decision
[21:54] <Pici> I think so.
[21:54] <topyli> discussing on ML might be a good idea, blanket bans are not to my liking either really
[21:54] <topyli> we could poke ikonia to start the discussion maybe?
[21:55] <nhandler> If it turns out that most bshellz users are problem makers, we could look into setting up a process to grant +e to legit users (we could always revoke that if they misbehave and need to be banned)
[21:55] <nhandler> topyli: Probably best. That way, the initial message will contain some real/useful info
[21:55] <topyli> yes
[21:56] <nhandler> Someone want to poke him? If not, I could
[21:56] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue
[21:56] <Pici> I could poke him, but probably not until monday morning.
[21:56] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue
[21:57] <nhandler> Pici: That is ok. I'll take care of it (I realized I didn't take any actions yet)
[21:57] <nhandler> Any more items?
[21:57] <Pici> Not from me.
[21:58] <nhandler> topyli: ?
[21:58] <topyli> nope
[21:58] <nhandler> Alright, anyone want to take care of the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll get those too.
[21:59] <Pici> Thanks for volunteering ;)
[21:59] <topyli> :)
[22:00] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[22:00] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[22:00] <nhandler> Thanks for coming everyone
[22:00] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[22:00] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:00.
[22:00] <Pici> Have a good weekend everyone :)
[22:01] <topyli> midnight!
[22:01] <topyli> thanks guys, good meeting