[21:00] <nhandler> #startmeeting
[21:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:00. The chair is nhandler.
[21:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:00] <nhandler> Who is here for the IRCC meeting?
[21:00] <Seeker`> o/
[21:00] <jussi> o/
[21:00] <topyli> o/
[21:00] <tsimpson> o/
[21:00] <jussi> we have quorum!
[21:00] <rww_> o/ (kinda)
[21:01] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[21:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[21:01] <nhandler> [TOPIC] -offtopic 'support' discussion policy
[21:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  -offtopic 'support' discussion policy
[21:01] <nhandler> Pici: You around?
[21:02] <Seeker`> -20:01:55- [freenode] ~s~  idle     : 0 days 18 hours 42 mins 48 secs signon: Sun Oct  3 22:00:19 2010
[21:02] <nhandler> Yeah, I just noticed that Seeker`
[21:02] <nhandler> Does anyone know enough about what he wanted to talk about for us to discuss this?
[21:02] <nhandler> If not, we can hold off on this until the next meeting
[21:02] <jussi> not I
[21:02] <jussi> lets do that.
[21:02] <topyli> or reopen later in this one if he appears late
[21:03] <nhandler> [AGREED] Defer discussion about -offtopic 'support' discussion policy until next meeting
[21:03] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Defer discussion about -offtopic 'support' discussion policy until next meeting
[21:03] <nhandler> [TOPIC] All core channel ops should have +o in -ops
[21:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  All core channel ops should have +o in -ops
[21:03] <nhandler> Seeker`: Care to introduce this topic?
[21:03] <Seeker`> ok
[21:03] <Seeker`> basically, as it stands, the people that have +o in -ops is pretty arbitrary
[21:04] <Seeker`> there isn't a good coverage of all timezones at present, I've had occasion myself to call !ops in -ops and the call has gone unanswered
[21:04] <Seeker`> leaving 2 or 3 ops sitting in -ops not being able to do anything about a troll sitting there taunting us
[21:05] <jussi> My view is that we need to get the core ops thing up and running, and then the core ops will be given +o in -ops. (as planned)
[21:06] <Seeker`> The way I see it, if someone is trusted enough to have +o in one or more core channels, they should be trusted enough to have +o in -ops. I understand that the rules in -ops are a bit different to core channels, so perhaps a delay between becoming +o in a core channel and -ops may be appropriate, until individuals understand howt he channel works better
[21:06] <Seeker`> -done-
[21:07] <tsimpson> personally, I'm more inclined to give people +o before we get the core ops thing sorted
[21:07] <tsimpson> it is, after all, the ops channel
[21:07] <Tm_T> question is, to who? (:
[21:08] <tsimpson> for the moment, I'm all for giving the operators in core channels +o
[21:08] <nhandler> My biggest issue is that the channel has always been treated as an exception. ~ubuntu-core-irc-channels is a subteam of it on LP (which implies it is a core channel), but we've never really applied the OP application process to it
[21:08] <tsimpson> it should only take the modification of a template
[21:09] <topyli> isn't everybody in -ops an op in one or more core channels?
[21:09] <tsimpson> topyli: nope, for legacy reasons
[21:09] <Seeker`> topyli: not necessarily. Popey isn't
[21:09] <nhandler> topyli: Besides freenode staff, they should be (including the core devel ops)
[21:09] <jussi> I think we give a few ops in the correct timzones +o, as per the need, recruit the same as any other channel
[21:10] <nhandler> Seeker`: He is an #ubuntu-meeting op
[21:10] <rww_> tsimpson: who falls under legacy reasons? as I understood it, those people got asked not to idle a while back
[21:10] <Seeker`> nhandler: my mistake, he said he wasn't a core channels op earlier :P
[21:11] <tsimpson> rww_: ops become inactive or leave, but the access list is not updated
[21:11] <rww_> oh, okay, I misunderstood. thanks
[21:11] <Seeker`> jussi: any good reasons for only appointing a few people?
[21:11] <jussi> I really strongly think that in the meantime, before the core ops thing is implemented, we treat it like any other channel
[21:11] <nhandler> jussi: I would be in favor of that.
[21:11] <nhandler> I really hate exceptions ;)
[21:12] <topyli> i think this is a normal situation of a channel needing a few more ops
[21:12] <topyli> much like jussi said
[21:12] <Seeker`> jussi: surely it is more important to get the right people, rather than just giving it to people because they occupy the right timezone
[21:12] <nhandler> Seeker`: Which is why interested people would apply and get chosen by the IRCC (just like people interested in being an #ubuntu op have to do)
[21:13] <nhandler> We aren't just going to let some unqualified person be an OP (in any core channel)
[21:13] <topyli> Seeker`: timezone is one of the qualities that makes a person "right"
[21:14] <nhandler> But not the only one ;)
[21:14] <topyli> certainly not :)
[21:14] <tsimpson> ok, so which time zones do we feel are lacking?
[21:15] <Seeker`> just checking :) jussi's statement implied that timezone is the deciding factor
[21:15] <Seeker`> err, mainly from about midnight to 9am UK time is when I've seen the most incidents
[21:16] <ikonia> to be honest, I don't think there is a blank spot, it's hit and miss and luck of the draw
[21:16] <nhandler> jussi, topyli, tsimpson: Are we basically in agreement that we will treat #ubuntu-ops like any other core channel in need of more OPs at least until we get the core-ops set up?
[21:16] <jussi> Im usually around on most days UK 7-9
[21:17] <tsimpson> nhandler: as it is a core channel, yes
[21:17] <topyli> nhandler: i would agree
[21:17] <jussi> nhandler: make it a vote, but yes
[21:17] <nhandler> jussi: Fine. Not much point in a vote when there is clear agreement, but for formalities sake...
[21:17] <tsimpson> I don't think we need to vote, it's listed as core anyway
[21:17] <Seeker`> ikonia: agreed. At the moment half of the -ops access list is inactive, and it is pretty much dependant on who is online when
[21:17] <rww_> ikonia: I don't really agree. This is the third time I think that timeslot's been mentioned as not having enough ops in the past year..
[21:17] <Seeker`> ikonia: but out of all time periods, I think that is the worst
[21:17] <nhandler> [VOTE] Treat #ubuntu-ops like other core channels in need of more OPs at least until core-ops are setup
[21:17] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Treat #ubuntu-ops like other core channels in need of more OPs at least until core-ops are setup.
[21:17] <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
[21:17] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[21:18] <topyli> +1
[21:18] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[21:18] <jussi> +1
[21:18] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[21:18] <tsimpson> +1
[21:18] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[21:18] <ikonia> rww_: sorry, I'm sure there are blank spots, but not ones that suffer over others
[21:18] <nhandler> +1
[21:18] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[21:18] <jussi> awesome
[21:18] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[21:18] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[21:18] <tsimpson> so, we start the process to assign new ops for TZs we need
[21:18] <topyli> also, let's recruit some ops there :)
[21:18] <nhandler> [AGREED] Treat #ubuntu-ops like other core channels in need of more OPs at least until core-ops are setup
[21:18] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Treat #ubuntu-ops like other core channels in need of more OPs at least until core-ops are setup
[21:19] <nhandler> tsimpson: What timezones should that be? midnight to 9am UK time ?
[21:19] <tsimpson> we should note when announcing, that it will (unlike other core channels) be restricted to core channel ops only
[21:19] <topyli> i wouldn't think it will be difficult to get ops for -ops, as we have very good op candidates on the channel :)
[21:19] <jussi> topyli: +1
[21:20] <nhandler> tsimpson: Agreed. As only core channel ops can be in there, other users would not be qualified
[21:20] <jussi> but yeah, that tz sounds about right tio me
[21:20] <nhandler> [IDEA] Recruit OPs for midnight to 9am UK time
[21:20] <MootBot> IDEA received:  Recruit OPs for midnight to 9am UK time
[21:20] <tsimpson> nhandler: I think US and AU (maybe Asia) would fall into those times
[21:20] <nhandler> What is UK time? UTC+1 ?
[21:20] <tsimpson> it's quite a large gap
[21:21] <tsimpson> currently +1, as it's summer-time
[21:21] <nhandler> Well, the early portion of that range could definitely work for people in the US. But 9am UK would be pretty early for most people
[21:21] <Seeker`> well, apart from aus
[21:21] <jussi> 9am UK is good for Euro
[21:22] <topyli> generally i think we should take good care that someone always has access in -ops because that's where we forward our problems
[21:22] <jussi> its the euro early morning that is the most issue
[21:22] <topyli> well not our problems but you know, problems
[21:22] <nhandler> Does someone want to volunteer to send out an email about this? If not, I think I could handle the action
[21:23] <jussi> nhandler: I think tsimpson is planning one about the core ops, but there needs to be one about the op recruitment
[21:23] <nhandler> jussi: He sent that out earlier today
[21:23] <topyli> go ahead. we don't need to advertise this more publically since the email list should reach all eligible candidates
[21:24] <jussi> oh, havent looked at mail recently :D
[21:24] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to send out email about recruiting OPs for #ubuntu-ops
[21:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to send out email about recruiting OPs for #ubuntu-ops
[21:24] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Any other business?
[21:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Any other business?
[21:25] <rww_> Any idea when you're going to be asking for more #ubuntu operator applications?
[21:25] <tsimpson> do you think more are needed?
[21:25] <jussi> rww_: we were planning on it soon
[21:25] <jussi> we did have a discussion about it
[21:26] <tsimpson> who is this "we" you keep going on about? ;p
[21:26] <Seeker`> the voices in jussi's head
[21:26] <topyli> :)
[21:26] <IdleOne> Don't know if more are needed but I for one am +1 for rww being a #ubuntu op
[21:26] <jussi> tsimpson: people who werent absent for ages :P
[21:26] <jussi> also, perhaps we should quickly breach the topic of copying the access list of #u to #u+1?
[21:27] <tsimpson> oh, yes we should
[21:27] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Copying access list of #ubuntu to #ubuntu+1
[21:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  Copying access list of #ubuntu to #ubuntu+1
[21:27] <rww_> tsimpson: yes, I think #ubuntu has a similar timezone coverage issue to -ops. The other day, I think the ops factoid got called two or three times before someone showed up, for example, and it's not an isolated thing.
[21:27] <nhandler> jussi: Care to breifly summarize this for everyone else?
[21:27] <tsimpson> rww_: looks like it'll happen soon anyway
[21:27]  * rww_ nods
[21:27] <jussi> simply  that we copy the access list across to +1 as there isnt much difference between them
[21:28] <tsimpson> and, imo, +1 is understaffed
[21:28] <jussi> yes, that too
[21:28] <IdleOne> agreed
[21:28] <topyli> it's a simple and good solution
[21:29] <topyli> i'm not sure if it's enough though, not all #u ops are automatically active in +1
[21:29] <jussi> topyli: true, but we can then add more if needed.
[21:29] <rww_> topyli: true, but it can only help that
[21:29] <nhandler> If we were to do this, would it be a one time copy? Or would we basically say "If you become a #u op you also become a +1 op"?
[21:29] <tsimpson> a few are, and we can send out a mail requesting people to idle there
[21:29] <ikonia> +1 goes up/down in activity
[21:30] <topyli> nhandler: i would make it permanent
[21:30] <ikonia> and it's normally quite a well behaved channel
[21:30] <tsimpson> they don't need to be especially active in there, just watch it
[21:30] <jussi> nhandler: I think the latter
[21:30] <jussi> and be able to respond to ops calls
[21:30] <topyli> and even if everybody doesn't join +1, it's still an improvement
[21:30] <tsimpson> as +1 is a support channel, it makes sense for #u ops to be ops there
[21:30] <nhandler> I have no objections as long as we document this on the wiki somewhere
[21:31] <nhandler> Shall we vote?
[21:31] <jussi> yes
[21:31] <jussi> basically that we unify and keep unified the #u and #u+1 lists
[21:31] <jussi> IMHO
[21:32] <nhandler> jussi: Well, it isn't really unifying, as there will be some OPs in +1 that aren't in #u
[21:32] <nhandler> But all #u ops will be ops in +1
[21:32] <jussi> I suppose
[21:32] <nhandler> [VOTE] Make being an #ubuntu operator also grant operator access in #ubuntu+1
[21:32] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Make being an #ubuntu operator also grant operator access in #ubuntu+1.
[21:32] <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
[21:32] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[21:32] <topyli> +1
[21:32] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[21:32] <tsimpson> until we (probably I) get the access list stuff sorted, we can live with keeping existing ops for +1 around
[21:33] <tsimpson> +1
[21:33] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[21:33] <nhandler> +1
[21:33] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[21:33] <jussi> +1
[21:33] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[21:33] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[21:33] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[21:33] <nhandler> [AGREED] Make being an #ubuntu operator also grant operator access in #ubuntu+1
[21:33] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Make being an #ubuntu operator also grant operator access in #ubuntu+1
[21:33] <nhandler> Would someone like to document this on the wiki, send out an email to the ML, and update the access lists?
[21:33] <topyli> tsimpson: +1 is not going to be very busy for a while now, so there is time to fix this
[21:34] <tsimpson> topyli: if you know python, you can help :)
[21:34]  * tsimpson starts begging
[21:34] <topyli> yes i've heard of python
[21:35] <nhandler> We also need to update LP to reflect this
[21:35] <tsimpson> once you know python, you can corrupt that knowledge with supybot
[21:35] <nhandler> tsimpson: Would you like this action?
[21:36] <tsimpson> where will we note it?
[21:36] <nhandler> tsimpson: Maybe on the OP application page
[21:36] <tsimpson> ah, we already have a "Notes" section, it will fit well there
[21:36] <nhandler> tsimpson: So are you fine with this action?
[21:37] <tsimpson> nhandler: ok, I'll do that
[21:37] <nhandler> [ACTION] tsimpson to document change on the OP application wiki page, send email to ML, update access lists, and update teams on LP
[21:37] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to document change on the OP application wiki page, send email to ML, update access lists, and update teams on LP
[21:37] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Any more business?
[21:37] <MootBot> New Topic:  Any more business?
[21:38] <nhandler> jussi, tsimpson, topyli: Anything else?
[21:38] <tsimpson> nothing from me
[21:38] <topyli> nope
[21:40] <nhandler> In that case, any volunteers to do the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll do them.
[21:43] <topyli> apparently not
[21:44] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[21:44] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[21:44] <nhandler> Great meeting everyone
[21:44] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[21:44] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:44.
[21:45] <topyli> thanks guys