[06:53] <tomswartz07> Does anyone notice that 'calendar' is spelled wrong in the topic? jussi01 has it spelled 'calender'
[06:55] <tomswartz07> haha. thanks
[16:37] <Zotto> Hola a todos
[16:38] <Zotto> Hola?
[16:39] <gorilla> Zotto: This is not a discussion channel but for meetings only.
[16:39] <Zotto> oh sorry, do you know where i have support?
[16:41] <gorilla> try #ubuntu-team
[16:41] <gorilla> impatient!
[16:51] <SergioMeneses> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJamEs
[19:02] <topyli> hi
[19:02] <jussi> ooh, we have a topyli
[19:02] <topyli> need 5min, sorry
[19:02] <jussi> k
[19:02] <jussi> we dont have quorum yet anyway
[19:02] <Pici> hi
[19:02] <jussi> ooh, hi Pici
[19:03] <jussi> @random Pici topyli jussi
[19:03] <Pici> :(
[19:04] <jussi> you are chairing then...
[19:04] <gnomefreak> including me only 4 people?
[19:04] <Pici> #startmeeting
[19:04] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:04. The chair is Pici.
[19:04] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:04]  * jussi wonders if LjL is around
[19:04] <LjL> yes
[19:04] <jussi> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:05] <Pici> #topic Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected
[19:05] <Pici> [topic] Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected
[19:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Legitimacy of discussing policies and op actions by people not directly affected
[19:05] <LjL> I will have to leave for dinner shortly, so I have prepared my points beforehand. Should I start pasting?
[19:05]  * Pici fumbles with mootbot
[19:06] <Pici> Go ahead
[19:06] <LjL> My agenda item is about whether or not it is appropriate for someone to discuss the operator actions involved in a ban (or similar measure) even when the ban involved a different user.
[19:06] <LjL> I think it should be, mostly in the name of open debate and criticism. Specifically:
[19:06] <LjL> - generally speaking, open discussion of the policies is a good thing, and like it or not, when it comes to IRC, bans become an important part of policy making
[19:06] <LjL> - the banned person is not always in the best position to discuss their own ban, even if they have some constructive criticism about it, because they are likely to either avoid further attrition with the ops in order to get their ban lifted, or sometimes get very upset about what they feel was an unfair ban, and not act with the needed calm
[19:07] <LjL> - someone lobbying against a ban on behalf of the banned may be their friend, and just doing it to get their ban lifted; however, it shouldn't be difficult for the ops to use common sense to tell apart this situation (example: the person complaining was never in the channel before) from the case where someone has concerns about policies implied in the ban (as opposed to purely the ban itself)
[19:07] <LjL> In the incident that caused me to bring this up in the agenda, for instance, one of the reasons I attempted to discuss ryaxnb's ban was that days before, when Flannel asked him if he could drop a topic that was perceived as uninteresting, I had said:
[19:07] <LjL> [00:52] <LjL> ryaxnbuntu: i don't think he was speaking as an op there though. as much as we might all be tired of your ramblings, there is no particular reason to actually request stopping that discussion.
[19:08] <LjL> Because I said that to ryaxnb in good faith, and then later he was banned on the grounds of doing what I had told him he wouldn't be banned for, I believe I had a legitimate interest in his ban (rather than being a "sent" by him to "bully", as I was perhaps too hastily accused of doing).
[19:08] <LjL> I also believe similar circumstances where someone may have a legitimate interest in a ban, even though he's not directly involved in it, are potentially many; I'd say they are more than the cases where the concern is not legitimate.
[19:08] <LjL> So, please don't gag everyone just because there will always be someone complaining for the sake of complaining.
[19:10] <Pici> Hmmm.
[19:10] <jussi> lol, was typing the same thing
[19:11]  * gnomefreak im still trying to figure out the first part of it
[19:12] <jussi> While can understand LjL's point, there is also a point to be made for discussion of the ban only with affected parties. pehaps it should be extended to "relevant parties"?
[19:13] <topyli> ops discuss each others' actions. letting users do the same is a slippery slope
[19:14] <LjL> How do you determine relevancy? Also, what would happen if someone (me, for instance) asked "theoretically", "hypothetically" about whether the guidelines/policies would justify taking action against a user, without making any specific reference?
[19:14] <jussi> devils advocate a bit, lets look at it like this:  what bad things can happen from discussing bans with any user intersted?
[19:14] <topyli> jussi: some such restriction could work, although "relevant" is hard to define
[19:14] <LjL> topyli: I absolutely disagree with that statement. This is not a democracy, but it's a community. You can't get the users completely out of the loop like that, because the users MAKE the community.
[19:15] <Pici> We have a number of people in our channels who aren't ops who I would accept criticism from regarding my actions as an operator.
[19:15] <topyli> LjL: true. just pondering how to keep it sane
[19:16] <LjL> topyli: as I said, i think common sense would work. A user who you've never seen before join -ops and asks "why did you ban XYZ?!". You check the logs, and apparently that person wasn't even present when the ban happened. What gives? Well, you tell them to have the involved person join.
[19:16] <topyli> common sense is indeed handy
[19:17] <LjL> There really is no need to let them be the banned entity's attorney in that case. But even then, if they go on to say something like "I'm not asking for the ban to be removed, but I would like to clarify with you the policies that led to that", what's wrong with that, even if it involved criticism?
[19:17] <jussi> but there needs to be some codification of it
[19:18] <Pici> We tell people that if they have a problem with the actions of an operator or one of our channel policies that they can join -ops to discuss, isn't what LjL is suggesting just an extension of that?
[19:18] <jussi> yes, it is.
[19:18] <LjL> I think it's... just that, actually.
[19:18] <IdleOne> I feel that any user asking for clarification about a specific ban is entitled to it, NOT while the op is discussing it with the user affected by the ban.
[19:18] <LjL> I was indeed very put off when I was told it wasn't appropriate. I thought I was merely following the !appeals factoid.
[19:19] <LjL> IdleOne: agreed.
[19:19] <gnomefreak> but isnt that why the bot asks us to comment on a remove/ban so that it is posted to the bt. and i am assuming everyone has access to it not just ops
[19:19] <LjL> It isn't a public show, or for that matter a TV tribune, for sure.
[19:19] <Pici> gnomefreak: no the bt is operator access only.
[19:19] <LjL> gnomefreak: only ops have BT access.
[19:19] <gnomefreak> k
[19:19] <jussi> gnomefreak: not yet, if we get bt2 up soon...
[19:20] <IdleOne> LjL: I think it was not appropriate at the time because flannel was in the middle of talking to ryan..
[19:20] <LjL> IdleOne: what? No, he wasn't...
[19:20] <IdleOne> LjL: I might be mistaken, I would have to look back at the log
[19:20] <LjL> Unless by "in the middle" you mean idle for a day or so
[19:21] <IdleOne> in any case, I think you have the right to join -ops and ask why a ban was placed.
[19:22] <LjL> For clarity - what happened is that I joined #ubuntu-ops, asked for "a rationale for ryaxnb's ban"; ikonia started discussing that with me; then elky pointed out that bullies sent by the bannee aren't welcome, and that she didn't know bans were discussed with third-parties.
[19:22] <topyli> i think LjL's case provides an example of what we should allow. but how to generalize it as policy, i don't know offhand
[19:22] <LjL> Flannel wasn't involved at that time.
[19:22] <Pici> topyli: Thats what I've been trying to figure out.
[19:22] <jussi> topyli: +1
[19:22] <Pici> I don't want to see -ops turning into a zoo.
[19:23] <gnomefreak> the disscussion should stop at why. it never not extend to "please un ban him" or anything the like
[19:23] <LjL> Honestly, don't you think that maybe the time (which is, I have to say, *very* long on average) ops tend to spend discussing bans with people who are, let's face it, often obvious trolls, could be better spent addressing *other* people's concerns?
[19:23] <IdleOne> topyli: agreed, it is hard to make a policy on something that requires common sense
[19:23] <topyli> IdleOne: aye
[19:24] <LjL> gnomefreak: not "please unban him", but certainly criticism of the reasons the ban was placed should be acceptable.
[19:24] <LjL> Besides, if it's not acceptable for the IRC Council, then the only other venue would be the Community Council. Is that warranted?
[19:24] <topyli> mistakes happen all the time, after all
[19:24] <gnomefreak> LjL: i agree with that.im just worried that it will get that far
[19:24] <jussi> LjL: feel free to propose policy wording if you have something you have been thinking of.
[19:24] <IdleOne> LjL: I think the fear here is like Pici said -ops could potentially turn into a zoo
[19:24] <LjL> IdleOne: that's why it's called "common sense" and not "policy" ;)
[19:25] <gnomefreak> maybe a PM might be better off?
[19:25] <LjL> jussi: I really don't think there is need for any written policy myself. !Appeals already tell people what they can expect to be able to do, just fine.
[19:25] <LjL> gnomefreak: PM might work sometimes but I don't think the IRC Team should reserve the right to force everything to PM. That's why #ubuntu-ops exists and why there's supposed to be transparency...
[19:26] <Pici> !appeaks
[19:26] <Pici> !appeala
[19:26] <Pici> argh
[19:26] <IdleOne> haha
[19:26] <Pici> !appeals
[19:27] <LjL> Written policy, in my opinion, would be warranted if the decision were to NOT allow talk about bans. But if the decision will be to allow it, then why policy?
[19:27] <Pici> I think we should make a slight modification to the wording of the appeals wiki to make it match what the factoid says.  i.e, you don't need to be the target of the action to start a dialog.
[19:28] <LjL> I have to leave now, even though I might be able to peek once every few minutes.
[19:28] <jussi> do we then allow "attorney" style antics?
[19:28] <IdleOne> no
[19:28] <jussi> or is this just a policy discussion mechanism
[19:29] <Pici> Yes.  Just like we allow discussion of other irc issues.
[19:29] <IdleOne> we allow users to ask why a ban was set but not allow a third party to "defend" the banee
[19:29] <topyli> i'd say it falls under the ability of anybody to join -ops and discuss things that worry them
[19:29] <guntbert> jussi: I haven't seen the attempt from anyone to speak "on behalve" of someone else - so no "attorney style"
[19:30] <Pici> It happens, but its fairly rare.
[19:30] <guntbert> and should definitely not be accepted
[19:31] <jussi> so my view is we add something that says roughly "if yo want to discuss policy relating to a ban feel free to join -ops"
[19:31]  * gnomefreak has learned it is not a smart thing to do since people are not always predictible
[19:32] <gnomefreak> make a note that it stops at policy (at least it should stop there or it can get messy)
[19:32] <topyli> jussi: yeah, it would keep current policy but clarify it
[19:32] <LjL> One more thing - if it's decided that these discussions are to be allowed, then I will probably join #ubuntu-ops again and discuss ryaxnb's ban, *even though the ban has been lifted*, because I am concerned about the relevant policies. Do you see how that is definitely not being anyone's attorney? They aren't banned!
[19:33] <jussi> Pici: do you think a vote is appropriate at this point?
[19:33] <Pici> jussi: I was just going to suggest it
[19:34] <jussi> :)
[19:34] <IdleOne> Who can vote exactly? just IRCC member right?
[19:34] <jussi> je
[19:34] <IdleOne> k
[19:34] <jussi> jes
[19:34] <topyli> LjL: say if ryaxnb and whoever banned him were discussing his ban. *then* it would not be ok for you to interfere. othrwise, it would not be interference but general policy discussion
[19:34] <Pici> [vote] Shall we slightly revise the appeals wiki entry to clarify that users may dispute operator actions even when they were not the user affected by such actions?
[19:34] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Shall we slightly revise the appeals wiki entry to clarify that users may dispute operator actions even when they were not the user affected by such actions?.
[19:34] <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
[19:34] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:35] <Pici> +1
[19:35] <MootBot> +1 received from Pici. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:35] <jussi> +1
[19:35] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:35] <topyli> +1
[19:35] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:35] <gnomefreak> be voting can we make a trial run out of it first to see how it will run?
[19:35] <Pici> [endvote]
[19:35] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:35] <jussi> gnomefreak: everything we do is a trial, if it doesnt work, you raise it and we talk about it a again
[19:35] <gnomefreak> ok
[19:36] <Pici> Who wants to make the changes?
[19:36] <jussi> Pici: nhandler said feel free to assign him something...
[19:36] <jussi> :D
[19:36] <Pici> [action] nhandler to revise wiki page
[19:36] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to revise wiki page
[19:36] <jussi> now, any bugs open?
[19:37] <topyli> thanks nhandler! :)
[19:38] <Pici> I don't think theres anything else.
[19:38] <jussi> ok, thanks everyone! :)
[19:38] <Pici> #endmeeting
[19:38] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:38.
[19:38] <IdleOne> :)
[19:39] <Pici> I'll put the notes up later.
[19:39] <topyli> grand