=== oubiwann-away is now known as oubiwann === Andre_Gondim is now known as Andre_Gondim-afk === Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha === lifeless_ is now known as lifeless === duanedesign is now known as duanedesign_____ === duanedesign_____ is now known as duanedesign === yofel_ is now known as yofel [21:01] hi [21:01] jussi, tsimpson, Pici, topyli: Who is here for the meeting? [21:01] o/ [21:01] #startmeeting [21:01] Meeting started at 15:01. The chair is nhandler. [21:01] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [21:01] * Pici sits on nhandler [21:01] [TOPIC] Support channel bug parsing [21:01] New Topic: Support channel bug parsing [21:01] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda [21:01] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda [21:02] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal [21:02] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal [21:02] Pici: Care to briefly summarize this item? [21:03] I added this to the agenda firstly because kangaroo was so adamant about getting it enabled in #xubuntu [21:04] 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] Feel free to correct me if I'm mistating things. [21:04] So is there currently any technical reason for having it disabled? [21:05] i have no idea [21:06] I can't really think of a good non-technical reason for keeping it disabled either. [21:06] jussi called me earlier because he was uncertain if he can make the meeting and he definitely doesn't want it enabled [21:06] topyli: Did he give a reason for not wanting it enabled? [21:06] Did he give a reason? [21:07] IM here for like 2 seconds [21:07] he doesn't think it's useful [21:08] jussi: oh, just in time. why don't you want the bot parsing bugs? [21:08] And the reason is that bugs in support channels add noise where there doesnt need to be noise. [21:08] jussi: and do you know if there are any technical reasons not to have the bug links enabled? [21:08] nhandler: no technical reason, it waspart of the ubuntu is too noisy to be useful bug iirc. [21:08] there isnt a really good reason to have them on in a support channel [21:09] What about in #k and #x? [21:09] 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] again, noise where no noise is really needed [21:09] I would be interested in seeing how many times in a day and how often they would get used if enabled [21:10] I find it hard to believe they would create more noise than say some of the more useless factoids we have [21:10] kangaroo predicts 0 to 2 times a day in #xubuntu [21:10] I dont think they are useful, but if you want them enabled then do so. I strongly suggest against it in #u. [21:11] I'm a bit iffy on it getting enabled in #u as well. [21:11] I need to go, but my vote is no to all core support chans [21:11] I personally would be interested in enabling them for a trial run and just seeing how much noise they actually create [21:11] bye [21:11] Bye jussi [21:11] jussi: have fun [21:11] byas [21:12] 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] 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] however, we're not changing users [21:13] topyli: Well, the bot also includes some additional useful info in the message (status, package, etc) [21:13] It would be a pain for a user to copy/paste all of that info [21:13] yeah [21:14] i liked the feature myself when it was still there [21:14] I'm willing to give it a trial run in #x and #k [21:15] 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] I advocate against bug reports in pure support channels - they are noisy by themselves and generate addittional noise/discussions [21:16] 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] 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] i've been failing to form an opinion. maybe a trial period would be smart [21:18] 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] guntbert: sure, they can bring up discussions like "why is this bug still not fixed? developers suck" [21:19] argh. I keep typing my command to get to this channel in other ones. [21:19] topyli: exactly [21:20] nhandler: how do we determine success and failure in the trial, if taken? [21:20] 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] 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] Pici: :) it seems you have a lot of channels open [21:21] topyli: Well, the "noise" complaint can be looked at based on the numbers that we can pull from the logs [21:21] 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] that will tell us noise directly from the bot. would have to check how much offtopic discussion it generates [21:22] yeah [21:22] nhandler: right now nearly nobody posts bug numbers in #ubuntu - I don't know about #xu and #ku though [21:22] If the results look promising, we could expand the trial to #u. If not, we can disable it in #k and #x [21:22] guntbert: Well, if not many people post them, then having it enabled wouldn't do much harm ;) [21:23] nhandler: as there are several people who jump on anything - I expect that number to increase ... [21:23] 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] Shall we vote? [21:24] On it being enabled for a trail run in #xubuntu and #kubuntu ? [21:24] [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] 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] 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] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [21:24] +1 [21:24] +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [21:24] +1 [21:24] +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [21:25] +1 [21:25] +1 received from Pici. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [21:25] [ENDVOTE] [21:25] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [21:25] [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] 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] trial to #ubuntu. If not, disable feature in #k and #x. [21:26] 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] if two weeks is enough, we can check on this in the next meeting [21:26] I think it will be. [21:26] Especially because we're getting 10.04.1 this week. [21:27] And does someone want to take the [ACTION] to actually enable the bug info in those channels? [21:28] I'm not sure if my bot access is working enough to do that [21:28] i could try grepping the logs before the next meeting [21:28] 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] I have a feeling our regulars will give us enough feedback. [21:29] [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] 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] Pici: Probably [21:29] Pici: But can you take the action to either directly or indirectly get the bug info enabled? [21:29] nhandler: Sure thing. [21:30] Thanks a lot [21:30] [ACTION] Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu [21:30] ACTION received: Pici to get bug info enabled in #kubuntu and #xubuntu [21:30] Anything more for this item? [21:30] I'd also like to bring up another issue that I didn't put on the agenda. [21:30] Pici: What is the issue? [21:30] About enabling bot features without discussion. [21:31] [TOPIC] Enabling Bot Features without discussion [21:31] New Topic: Enabling Bot Features without discussion [21:31] Pici: Go ahead [21:32] 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] s/the mailing list/on the mailing list/ [21:33] Well, I think certain things are safe to enable/implement without discussion, noisy channel notifications like that should have been brought up [21:33] this one has been annoying some ops [21:34] I think that any new features should be announced on the mailing list. [21:35] (it has been annoying me) [21:36] 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] not a lot of work to do that [21:37] well that probably doesn't make sense. read: doing that is not a lot of work :) [21:37] 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] I think it warrants discussion. [21:39] 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] 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] Flannel: From a technical point of view, I would think that would be trivial to do [21:40] maybe it would be useful for the bot devel team to communicate more on the ML, tell us what's cooking [21:40] nhandler: From a non-technical standpoint, would it diminish the feature in any way? [21:40] Thats a reasonable expectation [21:41] Flannel: It would make it less noticable (which can be seen as a bad ting) [21:41] topyli: Personally, I'd love to hear more about what awesome features are being added and I can look forward to. [21:41] likewise [21:41] or help implement, even [21:41] I think it would also encourage people to suggest new ideas. === ^peanut^ is now known as hiku [21:42] 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] do they have a mailing list? [21:42] topyli: You could use the 'Contact this Team' feature on LP. I'm not sure if they have a ML [21:43] They have a channel [21:43] More than one. [21:43] yep [21:44] So any volunteers for the action? [21:45] i can do it [21:45] [ACTION] topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication [21:45] ACTION received: topyli to contact the bot devel team about better communication [21:45] Any more topics to discuss? [21:46] bshellz maybe [21:46] they have a blanket ban on #ubuntu, #x, #k at least, it's used for ban evasion regularly [21:46] or so i've been told [21:47] [TOPIC] bshellz [21:47] New Topic: bshellz [21:47] I think ikonia knows the most about that [21:47] recently a blanket ban has been requested for -server as well [21:47] ikonia yes [21:48] 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] 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] 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] i'm under the impression that their admins are not keen on "policing" their users [21:52] 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] I think so. [21:54] discussing on ML might be a good idea, blanket bans are not to my liking either really [21:54] we could poke ikonia to start the discussion maybe? [21:55] 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] topyli: Probably best. That way, the initial message will contain some real/useful info [21:55] yes [21:56] Someone want to poke him? If not, I could [21:56] [ACTION] nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue [21:56] I could poke him, but probably not until monday morning. [21:56] ACTION received: nhandler to poke ikonia about sending an email to the ML about the bshellz issue [21:57] Pici: That is ok. I'll take care of it (I realized I didn't take any actions yet) [21:57] Any more items? [21:57] Not from me. [21:58] topyli: ? [21:58] nope [21:58] Alright, anyone want to take care of the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll get those too. [21:59] Thanks for volunteering ;) [21:59] :) [22:00] [ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks [22:00] ACTION received: nhandler to do post-meeting tasks [22:00] Thanks for coming everyone [22:00] #endmeeting [22:00] Meeting finished at 16:00. [22:00] Have a good weekend everyone :) [22:01] midnight! [22:01] thanks guys, good meeting