[00:54] <IdleOne> So how got ops in -ot today?
[00:54] <IdleOne> who not how
[00:57] <Seeker`> rww I think
[00:58] <IdleOne> I see
[00:58] <IdleOne> well could of been worse but how did that happen?
[00:58] <Seeker`> read the scrollback
[00:58] <IdleOne> I lost the logs and don't have scrollback :/
[00:58] <IdleOne> round what time was it. I'll check online?
[00:59] <Pici> huh
[00:59] <Seeker`> just over 4 hours ago
[01:01] <IdleOne> ok I see what happened
[01:02] <IdleOne> well, uh I have no opinion on it.
[01:02] <Pici> It looks like someone gave him the +o mode because no one else was around.
[01:02] <Seeker`> yeah, pretty much
[01:02] <Pici> Not the flag.
[01:02] <IdleOne> in retrospect, the op chose someone they trusted to handle a situation for them when nobody else was available
[01:03] <IdleOne> no harm no foul
[01:03] <Seeker`> IdleOne: yeah, but what is the point spending hours and hours quibbling over tiny tiny details on mailing list / on wiki pages / in meetings to draw up processes, which then get ignored when it comes to actually dealing with stuff
[01:04] <Pici> He wasn't made a permanent op.
[01:04] <Seeker`> Pici: I know
[01:04] <Pici> I was opped for situations like that back before I became a real op.
[01:04] <IdleOne> Seeker`: I don't know what was going on exactly but from the two op calls that were done just before I think it is safe to assume there was some sqawbling going on between the two.
[01:04] <Seeker`> Pici: yeah, but thats before we had to document everything
[01:06] <IdleOne> I also feel that granting a temp op to a user who I believe is going to be added to the ops team soonish anyway is not that big of a deal.
[01:06] <Seeker`> IdleOne: whether they are going to be added to the ops team or not is pretty much irrelevant
[01:06] <IdleOne> if it is then add some current ops to the access list in -ot
[01:06] <maco> i was made a temporary +o in #ubuntu 2 or 3 times before becoming a permanent op
[01:07] <Seeker`> My point isn't whether or not it was the right or wrong thing to do
[01:08] <Seeker`> but it definately flies in the face of the "document everything, ask everyones opinion on 3 different mediums before talking about considering writing a document about taking some action" that seems to happen now
[01:09] <IdleOne> ok, if it was the right thing to do then all the paper work discussion is moot, if it was the wrong thing to do the IRCC should be asked to do something about it.
[01:09] <Seeker`> IdleOne: no, you aren't listening. It isn't about whether the act is right or wrong.
[01:09] <Seeker`> ok. One more time. It isn't about whether the act is right or wrong.
[01:10] <IdleOne> so then there is no issue
[01:10] <maco> Seeker`: i think the difference is between long-term actions and "for a few hours" actions
[01:10] <ts2> the process defined was for creating operators (people with the +o flag), not for deciding if someone can have the +o mode in a channel temporally
[01:10] <Pici> No, Seeker` is saying its about whether the procedure was followed.
[01:10] <Seeker`> Pici: there is a procedure for giving someone temporary +o?
[01:10] <Pici> No.
[01:11] <Seeker`> ts2: yes, there is a procedure for that. There isn't one for granting temporary +o.
[01:11] <IdleOne> there was no time to follow a procedure, topyli took action and resolved a possible volatile situation.
[01:12] <Seeker`> My point is, what is the point of documenting stuff / defining processes / getting nowhere if, given the fluid nature of irc and the availability of ops, it can be bypassed at any time because an individual op thinks it is needed
[01:12] <IdleOne> I think the health of the channel was more important then did he +o someone when he shouldn't have
[01:12] <Seeker`> IdleOne: Again, and really for the last time, this IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS THE RIGHT OR WRONG THING TO DO
[01:12] <maco> (the procedure for +o flag does make me wonder what happened to the "dont ask for ops" rule every forum ive ever seen has)
[01:12] <ts2> Seeker`: but that's my point, why are you complaining that we spend " hours and hours quibbling over tiny tiny details on mailing list / on wiki pages / in meetings to draw up processes, which then get ignored when it comes to actually dealing with stuff"
[01:12] <ts2> that didn't happen
[01:13] <Seeker`> ts2: It happens generally for just about every decision. What is the point if any decision that has taken 100 man hours to make can be overriden if 1 person thinks it needs to be
[01:13] <maco> Seeker`: as ts2 said, there *isnt* a documented procedure for temporary +o mode
[01:13] <ts2> maco: we no longer have the "don't ask for ops" rule, we direct people to the wiki
[01:13] <maco> ts2: i know. i find it weird.
[01:14] <maco> and iw onder what % of applicants are troll types wanting powah
[01:14] <ts2> Seeker`: it wan't, giving someone the +o flag and the +o mode are different, nothing was overridden
[01:14] <Seeker`> maco: but seeing as everything needs to be documented, perhaps there should be. Which is clearly rediculous
[01:15] <maco> Seeker`: temporary +o mode is an emergency thing though...emergency actions need to be rather faster than the usual "wait a month for a meeting and vote"
[01:15] <IdleOne> So now we need to document every possible emergency when an op can grant +o for a few minutes?
[01:15] <Seeker`> ts2: imo, an op is someone with a +o flag. WHether or not they have the ability to give themselves +o in the future is moot. If there isn't anyone around to be able to deal with troublemakers, how can you be sure there is someone around to deal with the person given +o if they abuse it
[01:16] <ts2> Seeker`: that's up to the person giving the +o mode. you would only give that to someone you trust right?
[01:17] <Seeker`> ts2: that works fine, as long as all ops are infallable
[01:17] <maco> Seeker`: people with +o mode can abuse it too...
[01:17] <maco> thats why we have the appeals process
[01:17] <ts2> no, if your trust is abused, you fix anything that happened and know not to trust them again
[01:18] <Seeker`> maco: but the point of the process of giving +o mode is to weed out people that would abuse it
[01:19] <ts2> the point is that, it was only given because no ops seemed to be responding, and the only one about was on a mobile client
[01:19] <ts2> so in that case, they decided to give someone they trusted +o
[01:24] <Seeker`> bah, you aren't listening. It isn't about whether it was the right or wrong thing to do. I am frustrated by the fact that it takes an eternity for anything to change ever on the IRC team, because of the endless wiki pages, meetings and mailing list threads; a whole lot of talk yet nothing gets done. I've complained several times about the fact that not all ops have +o in here, and I've not yet seen any discussion about it, even after the meeting.
[01:24] <Seeker`> The fact that it takes months to give people that have been decided to be trusted with +o in busy, public channels aren't even given +o is ridiculous
[01:25] <Seeker`> But it is ok to give a random person, trusted by maybe only 1 of the people on the ops team +o in any channel, because 1 person thinks it is the right thing to do
[01:26] <Seeker`> but we need a shedload of documentation for quite literally anything else we do?
[01:28] <Seeker`> to the point where the only action that can be done without documentation is giving an untrusted person the ability to kick/ban/do what they like in channels
[01:28] <Seeker`> does that not seem a little off?
[01:29] <ts2> it was decided that the all core ops will get +o in here, but we didn't have a definition
[01:30] <ts2> the IRCC have been discussing that, as well as the larger IRC team
[01:30] <IdleOne> I don't see how the whole documenting everything has anything to do with handling a situation right away. I don't see that there was an alternative at the time for the op.
[01:30] <ts2> we plan to get the definition approved soon and then start adding members
[01:30] <Seeker`> IdleOne: I'm not going to type it out again for you.
[01:31] <ts2> in fact, we have accelorated that process a lot
[01:31] <Seeker`> ts2: how long has it been awaiting definition?
[01:31] <IdleOne> Seeker`: you don't need to. I understood you. IT IS NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG.
[01:32] <IdleOne> I saw it the first,second and 4th time you said it. but if you are going to use this situation as an example to explain your dislike with all the procedures (which I agree with you about btw) then you have to at least allow me to use it also.
[01:33] <ts2> Seeker`: since sometime around january-ish
[01:33] <Seeker`> ts2: so 10-11 months to define 1 term? And the process has been "accelerated"?
[01:33] <ts2> no, there was just no great need to get that specific thing done
[01:34] <Seeker`> there isn't a specific need to not do it either
[01:34] <Seeker`> thats the problem
[01:34] <ts2> so you don't want more ops in here?
[01:34] <Seeker`> none of this stuff is "urgent", it doesn't need to be done 30 seconds ago, so it is always put off to next week
[01:34] <Seeker`> so it never gets done
[01:35] <Seeker`> ts2: where did I say that?
[01:35] <Seeker`> What I'm saying is that if something needs to be done, do it
[01:35] <Seeker`> Its absolutely insane that it has taken 10-11 *months* to decide on one term.
[01:36] <ts2> except we have many things that we plan to get done, and have been asked by the CC to get done, and things in real life
[01:36] <Seeker`> how long does it *actually* take to define the term "core op"
[01:36] <ts2> it didn't take 10-11 months, it just wasn't being discussed before the need came up
[01:36] <ts2> so in fact, from the meeting to now
[01:37] <Seeker`> -00:31:03- :       Seeker`+: ts2: how long has it been awaiting definition?
[01:37] <Seeker`> -00:33:03- :ts2+: Seeker`: since sometime around january-ish
[01:37] <Seeker`> so my understanding of that is "In january, this term needed defining. 10 months later, it hasn't been defined".
[01:37] <ts2> that's when we decided we were going to create something called a "core op"
[01:38] <Seeker`> but this is my point
[01:38] <Seeker`> if something is actually needed, define it, do it
[01:38] <ts2> it wasn't needed
[01:38] <Seeker`> if it isn't, don't spend hours discussing it and putting it off
[01:38] <Seeker`> so if it wasn't needed, why did you need to create it?
[01:38] <ts2> it wasn't *needed* untill a use actually came up
[01:38] <ts2> it was planned to help management of access lists
[01:39] <Seeker`> and *that* is why there is too much planning and documenting going on
[01:39] <Seeker`> "we need to define a term , just in case we need it in future"
[01:39] <Seeker`> and then not having it defined
[01:39] <Seeker`> so when it is "needed" it isn't defined
[01:40] <ts2> actually no, because there are still things in progress before it needed to be defined
[01:40] <Seeker`> ts2: either there was a use for it at the time or there wasn't. If there was, it should have been defined sooner than 10 months later. If there wasn't, it shouldn't have been taking up peoples time (cause of, y'know, real life) by talking about it
[01:40] <ts2> having more ops in here was decided to be a higher priority, and so we needed to defined it (in writing) now
[01:41] <Seeker`> what needed to be sorted before you defined a core op?
[01:41] <ts2> if we don't write this stuff down, the next members of the council have no idea what these things are for or why they exist
[01:41] <ts2> they make their own (unwritten) procedures
[01:41] <Seeker`> what needed to be sorted before you defined a core op?
[01:42] <Seeker`> seriously, this is IRC, it shouldn't be *this* hard
[01:42] <Seeker`> we aren't organising a country here
[01:43] <ts2> defining what channels can be core, setting up the LP team structure, creating a bridge between LP and freenode (LP user -> NickServ account)
[01:43] <ts2> previously there was very little procedure written down, it was all just unwritten rules and defacto procedure
[01:44] <ts2> that is not a good way to govern
[01:44] <Seeker`> but it shouldn't take 10 months to write down
[01:44] <ts2> we can't work on everything at once
[01:45] <ts2> other things became more important at the time, so it was ignored
[01:46] <Seeker`> People behaving badly are bad. If they are being bad, warn/kick/ban them. If they have a problem with it, send them to the IRC council. If the IRC council wants more ops, say, "Hey, we want more ops", take a vote on who you want as ops. Core channels are non #ubuntu-demographic ones. Team structure is "if you are an op, you are in ubuntu-ops, if you are on the council, you are in ubuntu-irc-council"
[01:46] <Seeker`> I don't see why IRC has to be more complicated than the above.
[01:46] <Seeker`> Anything more is fluff, complications and time wasting.
[01:48] <ts2> your definition of a core channel is wrong
[01:48] <Seeker`> how so?
[01:48] <ts2> it's not just non-LoCo channels
[01:48] <Seeker`> what else is it then?
[01:49] <ts2> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope
[01:50] <ts2> A core channel is defined as an official channel in one of the following categories: Support for Ubuntu, or for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative; Main development channel for Ubuntu, or for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative; Main off-topic/discussion channel for Ubuntu, or for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative; Official IRC management channel
[01:52] <Seeker`> ok, so a slightly different definition of a core channel
[01:52] <Seeker`> but other than that, I don't think my short statement misses much
[01:53] <Seeker`> election procedures fo the IRCC maybe, but a core op is someone who is an op on a core channel
[01:53] <Seeker`> or, rather, having a core op being anything other than an op on a core channel is illogical
[01:54] <Seeker`> it certainly doesn't need 10 or 11 months to define it all
[01:54] <ts2> a core op is someone who has op on *all* core channels
[01:54] <Seeker`> ts2: now, or going forward?
[01:55] <Seeker`> i.e. do they have to be an op in all of those channels now to be a core op?
[01:55] <ts2> there is no now. as you've been saying, the requirements hand't been defined
[01:55] <Seeker`> or will it be that if they have +o in any of those channels now, they will be given them all later?
[01:55] <ts2> you're confusing "an operator in a core channel" and "a core-op"
[01:56] <Seeker`> there shouldn't be a difference
[01:56] <Seeker`> why does there need to be?
[01:56] <ts2> as I said, to aid in channel access management
[01:56] <Seeker`> no, thats not an answer
[01:56] <Seeker`> surely channel management is easier if the access list should be identical across all core channels
[01:57] <Seeker`> rather than remembering that person X is an op in A,B,C and that person y is in A,B,D
[01:57] <ts2> that's not going to happen
[01:57] <Seeker`> if someone is sensible enough to be an op, they are sensible enough to be an op
[01:57] <Seeker`> why not give them ops across all core channels?
[01:57] <ts2> for instance, the Kubuntu Council can add ops to #kubuntu or any kubuntu channel
[01:58] <ts2> and the motu council can add ops to their channel(s)
[01:58] <ts2> etc
[01:58] <Seeker`> but as they are part of irc, they should also be answerable to the ircc
[01:58] <Seeker`> These are channels that the IRCC *directly* manages
[01:58] <ts2> they are also part of Kubuntu (for instance), so are answerable to the Kubuntu Council
[01:59] <Seeker`> according to the doument you linked
[01:59] <Seeker`> yes, maybe so
[01:59] <Seeker`> but being in the irc space, if they are a totally unsuitable op, the ircc should be able to say "no".
[01:59] <ts2> it's something we have to deal with often as an IRC council, interaction with other councils happens
[01:59] <Seeker`> if they are sensible enough to be an op in a core channel, they should be sensible enough to be an op in *any* core channel
[02:00] <ts2> the forums council, kubuntu council, motu, LoCo, etc
[02:00] <Seeker`> can you come up with a sensible example where someone would only be suitable to be an op in a subset of the core channels?
[02:00] <ts2> so we should go around overriding other councils?
[02:01] <ts2> even though they share the same rules, each channel has its own culture
[02:02] <Seeker`> and the people that are getting +o in here are "core ops", that is, people that are ops in *every* core chanel?
[02:04] <ts2> -ops is a core channel, so they will have +o here too
[02:04] <Seeker`> so you get to be a core op by having +o in all core channels
[02:04] <Seeker`> and you get +o in here by being a core op?
[02:04] <ts2> you get to be a core op by applying
[02:05] <IdleOne> wow :/
[02:05] <Seeker`> And these core ops, they will be spending long enough talking / interacting in each channel to be aware of who is who and to intimately know the culture of each and every channel on the core channel list?
[02:06] <ts2> or else the council would have to request applications for ops in here to the wider world
[02:06] <ts2> no, as I said in the email to the list
[02:06] <ts2> a core op would act when no channel ops are available
[02:06] <ts2> but they would defer to channel ops otherwise
[02:08] <ts2> if we didn't get the core op process done, we (following our own rules) would have to open applications to be an op in -ops to everyone who wants to apply
[02:08] <ts2> which is silly, as only ops in core channels can idle here
[02:08] <Seeker`> so people who are an op in a core channel shouldn't automatically be an op in every core channel because "even though they share the same rules, each channel has its own culture", yet a core op won't have to know about the channels culture anyway, becuase they are there in emergencies
[02:08] <Seeker`> and will defer to the full time ops
[02:08] <Seeker`> is it just me or is that as clear as mud?
[02:09] <ts2> is that so much different from giving someone a temp +o? which you said you understood
[02:09] <IdleOne> I'm having a hard time seeing it also Seeker`
[02:10] <Seeker`> ts2: my point is, you said that defining a core op as someone who is an op on 1 core channel isn't good enough because they won't know the culture of each channel
[02:10] <ts2> that's a reason
[02:10] <Seeker`> ts2: then two lines later you said that they wouldn't need to know the culture of each channel anyway, because they are only there for emergencies when no full-time channel ops are available
[02:11] <ts2> actually, I said that in response to you asking why don't we just have all access lists the same
[02:11] <ts2> everyone is an op in every channel
[02:12] <ts2> channel ops are good, they already use the channel, are known there, people respect them already
[02:12] <ts2> but, if no channel op is around, someone else should be able to act
[02:12] <ts2> that's what a core op will be able to do
[02:12] <Seeker`> the standard required of someone to be an op in a core channel should be the same in each channel. If someone meets the standards for one channel, they should meet the standard for all channels, so should be given ops in all channels - for emergencies.
[02:14] <ts2> then you should suggest that at the next meeting
[02:15] <Seeker`> my point is that I shouldn't have to. This should have been defined 10 months ago when the term was thought up. Adding extra steps of applications, and having different levels of op responsible for different sets of places is just compplicating matters, adding in paperwork and taking time that noone really has
[02:16] <Seeker`> It doesn't need to be any harder than "If you are an op, you are an op"
[02:18] <Seeker`> I can't fathom the reason that anyone would have for making this as complicated as it seems to have become. You yourself said people have real life to deal with, so just keep it simple.
[02:22] <Seeker`> ts2: Or have I missed some woefully simple reason why it needs to be so complicated?
[02:32] <Seeker`> I guess thats a "no" then
[02:34] <Seeker`> edtime for me
[02:34] <Seeker`> *bed
[03:35] <rww> The ALL YOUR RAM ARE BELONG TO VISTA guy is in #ubuntu (ban-evading, if memory serves) again.
[03:37] <rww> although it looks like he calmed down a little, so... iono what you want to do about that :\
[03:37] <IdleOne> he didn't calm down enough
[03:38] <rww> Looks like all of his messages *adjusts glasses* are belong to /dev/null
[03:46] <IdleOne> dizkneelande1: How can we help you?
[03:46] <dizkneelande1> hi.
[03:46] <dizkneelande1> I'm trying to figure out how to use unetbootin to install from a usb stick
[03:46] <dizkneelande1> but I'm doing something wrong.
[03:47] <IdleOne> dizkneelande1: this is not a support channel. please ask in #ubuntu
[03:47] <dizkneelande1> ohhhhhh
[03:47] <dizkneelande1> k.  thanks
[05:10] <Jordan_U> kinder in german means children
[05:10] <Flannel> Hardly an emergency.
[05:10] <nhandler> User quit without saying anything
[05:11] <Jordan_U> I didn't claim it was, just explaining :)
[05:11] <IdleOne> if they rejoin we can ask them to change nick
[08:52] <Dawid> Szatan
[08:52] <Dawid> Elo :F
[08:53] <Dawid> Hello :D
[08:54] <jpds> Why, hello, good sir
[08:54] <klasa3c2> siema
[08:54] <Dawid> Elo :FD
[08:54] <klasa3c2> smierdzicie
[08:54] <klasa3c2> kalem
[08:54] <Dawid> JPna100%
[08:55] <Matrix> elo elo 320
[08:57] <ikonia> ?
[08:58] <jpds> ikonia: Excellent question.
[08:58] <ikonia> feel free to answer
[09:47] <jpds> !away > malte
[10:00] <Seeker`> Jewkonia: how can we help you?
[10:01] <ikonia> it's bacta
[10:01] <ikonia> trolling again
[10:01] <ikonia> it's a sad attempt of using jew as a racist slur against me
[10:01] <Seeker`> zomg! how clever of him!
[10:01] <ikonia> once again, this stupidly lose policy allows him to join here and waste time
[10:01] <ikonia> the only blessing is he's muted so can't be seen to speak in the channel
[10:01] <Jewkonia> *loose
[10:02] <Seeker`> -_-
[10:02] <Seeker`> !ops | Jewkonia
[10:02] <ikonia> excellent the mutes been removed
[10:02] <ikonia> !ops | bacta trolling again
[10:02] <ikonia> I wonder if it's worth reporting this to freenode about th attempt of a racist slur
[10:02] <topyli> sigh
[10:03] <ikonia> topyli: thank you for finally +b
[10:03] <Tm_T> topyli beat me to it
[10:03] <Seeker`> topyli: thanks. We would have dealt with it ourselves, but...*cough*
[10:03] <ikonia> it's starting to get stupid
[10:04] <topyli> not fun banning users from here :\
[10:04] <ikonia> topyli: no, it's not, but how many times does this user need to push
[10:04] <ikonia> he's sat there pm'ing me now as jewkonia
[10:04] <ikonia> the guy has over 40 entries in BT
[10:05] <topyli> yep, me too
[10:06] <ikonia> gone now
[10:09] <Tm_T> I feell bad for him, he obviously need help beyond our scope, waay beyond
[10:09] <Tm_T> ...I also hate touchscreen
[10:09] <topyli> seeker: please identify
[10:09] <seeker> Give me a sec
[10:10] <jpds> Wait, he's in NZ right now? I thought he was from IN.
[10:11] <Tm_T> seeker: hmm, that client doesn't provide means for server password, for example?
[10:11] <ikonia> jpds: no nz
[10:12] <seeker> Don't want to store my password in phone
[10:12] <seeker> Trying to work put how to msg nickserv
[10:12] <Tm_T> ah, right
[10:13] <ikonia> !council
[10:13] <ikonia> !ircc
[10:13] <ikonia> thats the link
[10:15] <seeker> Done
[10:17] <topyli> :)
[10:23] <ikonia> rats, I appear to have borked the agenda page
[10:23] <ikonia> anyone with wiki-fu able to help ?
[10:24] <Tm_T> I am moinmoin-incompatible
[10:24] <ikonia> I can't actually see why the one line is breaking the table
[10:24] <ikonia> oh there it goes
[10:24] <ikonia> fixed
[10:24] <ikonia> space at the end of a line
[10:28] <ikonia> topyli: you still there ?
[10:29] <topyli> yep
[10:30] <ikonia> topyli: are you on a device you can type on, or is it massive pain ?
[10:30] <topyli> i'm on my semi-comfortable eeepc .)
[10:30] <ikonia> can I drop you a quick pm ?
[10:30] <topyli> sure
[11:14] <popey> @login
[11:14] <popey> @btlogin
[13:19] <Seeker`> Ayrton: how can we help you?
[13:19] <Ayrton> Seeker`,
[13:20] <Ayrton> I fixed my issue in the #ubuntu-bots-devel
[13:20] <Ayrton> thanks =]
[14:19] <ikonia> thre
[14:19] <ikonia> there even
[14:46] <cwillu> quick question:  what's the policy on naughty words that occur in technical terms?
[14:46] <cwillu> I have a vague recollection of bruckfuck being fair play, for instance
[14:47] <cwillu> I wish to refer to "shits easy syndrome" which specifically links to a subsection in a well known blog post
[14:47] <Pici> AS long as they're talking about the language itself and not just saying it to be edgy it tends to be okay.
[14:47] <Pici> I've never heard of that latter example.
[14:47] <Pici> Also I'm really lagging.
[14:47] <cwillu> Pici, steve-yegge
[14:48] <cwillu> okay, I'm going to take this as an "okay", while avoiding continued use thereof
[16:22] <mneptok> 09:20 < Guest58514> Anyone know any (easy to use) Linux / Ubuntu software to up-scale 2D movies into (ideally Colorcode) 3D movies?
[16:23] <mneptok> i should just go back to bed. until 2077 when the humanoid plague-rats devour civilization.
[16:24] <IdleOne> sweet dreams
[18:27] <MichealH> Why is !une sating Ubuntu Netbook Remix?
[18:27] <MichealH> *saying
[18:27] <MichealH> !ue
[18:27] <MichealH> !une
[18:27] <ikonia> because it's not been updated yet
[18:28] <MichealH> But I sent a request yesterday?
[18:28] <ikonia> so ?
[18:28] <ikonia> it's being worked on and discussed
[18:28] <ikonia> that doesn't mean it was accepted
[18:29] <MichealH> I wasnt hinting at it being ignored/not accepted.
[18:29] <ikonia> then what where you saying ?
[18:29] <MichealH> I was just informing theop team about !une
[18:29] <ikonia> no - 18:28 < MichealH> But I sent a request yesterday?
[18:30] <ikonia> what where you saying if you where not hinting at why it had been ignored/not accepted
[18:30] <MichealH> I was informing you of !une being outdated.
[18:30] <ikonia> MichealH: you did that,
[18:30] <ikonia> then you stated But I sent a request yesterday?
[18:31] <MichealH> Then that hinted at that straight away?
[18:31] <ikonia> what else did it mean
[18:31] <ikonia> you informed us, I stated it was being worked on
[18:31] <ikonia> you then said that
[18:31] <ikonia> what else did it mean ?
[18:31] <MichealH> I was just sayign I sent a request yesterday
[18:31] <ikonia> "it's being worked on" "but I sent a request yesterday"
[18:32] <ikonia> suggests you are querying why your request has not been implimetned
[18:32] <ikonia> implemented
[18:32] <MichealH> It doesnt automatically mean that.
[18:32] <ikonia> it's not a problem, it's being worked on,
[18:32] <ikonia> MichealH: what did it mean
[18:33] <MichealH> It meant that I had informed you that the factoid was out dtated.
[18:33] <ikonia> no it didn't
[18:33] <ikonia> I told you it was being worked on
[18:33] <ikonia> you told us it was outdate
[18:33] <ikonia> you then stated "BUT" (thats the key word) I sent a request yesterday
[18:33] <ikonia> "but why, I sent a request yesterday" is how that reads
[18:34] <ikonia> it's not a problem, I just don't understand why you changed what you said
[18:34] <ikonia> there is not a problem querying why it's not been accepted yet
[18:36] <MichealH> You say that you say it was being worked on then I said it but My irssi backlog does not signify that.
[18:36] <ikonia> no you didn't say that
[18:36] <ikonia> you said "but I submitted a request yesteday"
[18:37] <ikonia> I have no idea why you are trying to chagne what you are saying, its "ok" to ask why it's not been accepted
[18:37] <MichealH> Yes, and then it enraged into a debate
[18:38] <ikonia> sorry got to go, dealing with a work issue
[18:38] <ikonia> it is being worked on / discussed though
[18:38] <ikonia> I saw a bit of it last night
[18:38] <MichealH> Okay
[18:38] <MichealH> I was just about to go too incase it enraged into much more  than a debate
[18:39] <MichealH> Anyway, see ya
[19:02] <elky> I found a Pici!
[19:04] <Pici> :o
[19:13] <Seeker`> o/
[19:15] <jussi> hiya Seeker`
[19:15] <Seeker`> hi
[19:19] <Seeker`> !logs
[19:32] <Seeker`> jussi: any comments on the discussion that happened in here last night?
[19:47] <elky> I've said so far to Seeker` in pm, but imho the process is broken, and really timely to the discussion that happened in the roundtable at uds this morning
[21:27] <ikonia> bacta again
[21:53] <themill> Hi guys -- is it by design that your bots in #ubuntu-unregged allow anyone with a webchat "cloak" straight in to #ubuntu?
[21:53] <ikonia> they have recently changed, so I'm not %100
[21:54] <Pici> themill: Only when the channel isn't set +r.
[21:54] <themill> (this is the current behaviour -- I was interested to see how this system worked and found that I was immediately allowed in to #u)
[21:54] <themill> Pici: #u currently is +r.
[21:54] <Pici> themill: You're identified.
[21:55] <themill> I am.... I was testing this with a webchat client. Hence me knowing that a webchat client was automatically and immediately accepted.
[21:55] <Pici> The forward for webchat users was recently removed in favor of a system whereby they're unable for speak for a moment while our bots do their magic.
[21:55] <Pici> Instead of sending them to a proxy channel while the bots do their magic.
[21:56] <themill> recently removed as in the last 2 minutes?
[21:56] <Pici> No.  A few weeks ago.
[21:56] <themill> right.
[21:57] <themill> Let's start from the top. I started up a webchat client. got it to /join #ubuntu. it was forwarded to #ubuntu-unregged. The bots there then immediately said "You're now cloaked; please try again joining #ubuntu" and invited me in. This is not as you describe it should be and not how I would have expected it to work.
[22:01] <ikonia> ??
[22:03]  * Pici shrugs
[22:19] <jussi> unregged is different to -proxy-users
[22:56] <PsyTrance> hello. can anybody unban me from #ubuntu channel? i'm banned becouse i have problem with my adsl, now i fixed it, no more join/part flood. (sorry for bad english :D) thank you
[22:56] <ikonia> PsyTrance: lets see,
[22:56] <ikonia> PsyTrance: you appear to be banned because your using bzshells,
[22:57] <PsyTrance> but my irc is on bshellz
[22:57] <PsyTrance> irssi
[22:57] <ikonia> PsyTrance: bzshells is a shell host that does not comply with ubuntu channel policies, so it's currently banned
[22:58] <PsyTrance> all users who use bshellz is banned?
[22:58] <ikonia> yes, currently
[22:58] <ikonia> some users are absuing it, the bzshells admins have no interest/control of maintaining it
[22:58] <ikonia> sorry about that
[22:58] <PsyTrance> :(
[22:59] <PsyTrance> can you unban only my host or set exception?
[22:59] <ikonia> sorry, not at the moment
[23:00] <ikonia> we can't admin every shell request, best you lean on your shell host admin and ask them to set guidelines that they can police
[23:01] <PsyTrance> ok, thank you anyway
[23:01] <ikonia> no problem
[23:01] <ikonia> sorry
[23:01] <PsyTrance> ah, ok :(
[23:01] <PsyTrance> bye :)
[23:01] <ikonia> bye
[23:22] <IdleOne> nhandler: I am guessing you are knee deep in LP but when you got a second could you explain the activation and deactivation emails I just got?
[23:23] <IdleOne> I assume others received also
[23:23] <nhandler> IdleOne: Was that for ~ubuntu-irc and was it within the past hour (or from the other day)?
[23:23] <IdleOne> nhandler: yes and yes
[23:23] <IdleOne> past hour
[23:24] <IdleOne> ubuntu-core-ops also
[23:25] <nhandler> IdleOne: ~ubuntu-core-ops contains all people who are OPs in core ubuntu channels. ~ubuntu-core-devel-ops is for the ops in core devel channels. ~ubuntu-ops simply contains both of those teams as members. I had accidentally added ~ubuntu-core-ops to ~ubuntu-irc instead of ~ubuntu-ops, which is why there was the deactivation
[23:26] <IdleOne> thank you.
[23:28] <Seeker`> what?
[23:29] <Seeker`> but a core op is someone who is an op in *all* core channels
[23:31] <Seeker`> seriosuly, you guys need to find different words to describe this stuff other than just "core", "op" and "channel"
[23:31] <Seeker`> a core op is someone who is an op in all core channels
[23:31] <Seeker`> but the core-op group is the group that contains all ops that are an op in any core channel
[23:32] <Seeker`> which has a sub group of Core IRC ops
[23:32] <Seeker`> which is different from the core-ops group
[23:32] <Pici> Er.  I thought we were going to make ops who were opped in a core channel be an op in all core channels.
[23:32] <Seeker`> Pici: not according to ts2 last night
[23:32] <IdleOne> maybe that is what the team shuffling is about
[23:32] <Pici> Well It was suggested at the last UDS that I attened by sabdfl.
[23:32] <Pici> And I agree with him.
[23:32] <Seeker`> as do I
[23:33] <IdleOne> +1
[23:33] <Seeker`> but ts2 seemed to think that a core op is different from a core channel op
[23:33] <Seeker`> and that the latter does not imply the former
[23:33] <Pici> Well we all have our own opinions and the terminology is a bit confusing.
[23:34] <Seeker`> "a bit"
[23:34] <Seeker`> I've seen more legible perl code
[23:34] <Seeker`> and that is write-once read-never
[23:34] <Seeker`> TheSarge: how can we help you?
[23:34] <TheSarge> Hi I use a public AP at my university to connect to IRC, and I am not able to connect to #Ubuntu because of this DCC exploit test?
[23:34] <IdleOne> I just don't like the idea of a "core op" being above the "core channel op" I thought that what the IRCC was for. They admin the core channel ops.
[23:35] <TheSarge> I cannot request this be fixed. What am I supposed to do?
[23:35] <Pici> TheSarge: You can switch your port to 8001 if your AP is failing the test.
[23:35] <Seeker`> change the port you connect on to 8001
[23:35] <TheSarge> Anyone know the switch for port in irssi? Is i -p (port) ?
[23:35] <Seeker`> TheSarge: and tell the uni computer guys that they fail :P
[23:36] <Seeker`> man irssi says yes
[23:36] <TheSarge> Is it true Unity will replace the regular gnome Desktop Enviroment in the next release?
[23:36] <Seeker`> thats offtopic for here
[23:36] <IdleOne> TheSarge: that's the word but yeah offtopic
[23:36] <TheSarge> So serious lmao.
[23:36] <Seeker`> try #ubuntu-offtopic :)
[23:37] <TheSarge> Try a girlfriend, lmao.
[23:37] <Pici> ...
[23:37] <IdleOne> ...
[23:37] <Seeker`> votes for him not getting in to ubuntu once his connection is fixed?
[23:37] <IdleOne> We need a girlfriend but he is here asking how to switch port so he can join us in #u
[23:38] <IdleOne> fail
[23:38] <TheSarge> Still doin it?
[23:39] <IdleOne> you need to restart you client I believe
[23:39] <TheSarge> I am on 8001
[23:39] <Pici> TheSarge: You'll need to do the test in -#read-topic after you switch the port.
[23:39] <TheSarge> I did restart my client
[23:40] <Seeker`> nhandler: any chance of a renaming that is clearer than mud for those groups?
[23:40] <Pici> TheSarge: Looks to be fixed now.
[23:41] <TheSarge> Thanks
[23:41] <Seeker`> TheSarge: just so you know, the sort of attitude you displayed before leaving here the first time isn't acceptable in the ubuntu community
[23:41] <TheSarge> Lmao. Ok buddy.
[23:42] <IdleOne> TheSarge: if there is nothing else, please part this channel. thanks and have a great day.
[23:44] <IdleOne> I see issues in his future
[23:47] <nhandler> Seeker`: The issue is, we have used the term 'core' to refer to the channels that the IRCC directly manages as well as for the new Core OPs. That is where the underlying confusion comes from imo. Did you have any suggestions for better names?
[23:47] <Seeker`> yes.
[23:48] <Seeker`> We have core channels. An op in a core channel is an op in all core channels and is a core op. Simples.
[23:48] <Pici> I'm confused too.
[23:49] <Seeker`> nhandler: or are we aiming for the worlds most complicated op hierarchy on irc in history?
[23:49] <Seeker`> cause, y'know, I think we are just about there right now
[23:50] <popey> +1 fwiw
[23:50] <Seeker`> popey: \o/
[23:51] <IdleOne> I have a question, when a new op is needed for say #u, who decides who gets +o?
[23:51] <Seeker`> the IRC council
[23:52] <IdleOne> what about #kubuntu?
[23:52] <nhandler> IdleOne: Same. Although, technically the Kubuntu Council can also add OPs for those channels
[23:53] <IdleOne> to many spoons in the kettle if you ask me
[23:53] <IdleOne> err pot
[23:53] <Pici> Just to keep you all in the loop, we're trying to get a draft for IRC -> Ubuntu Membership approved by the CC this week.
[23:54] <Seeker`> !logs
[23:54] <IdleOne> Pici: what does that mean IRC -> Ubuntu Membership ?\
[23:55] <nhandler> IdleOne: Basically, a way for people to easily gain Ubuntu Membership by contributing on IRC (via the IRCC)
[23:55] <IdleOne> ok
[23:55] <IdleOne> not to easily I hope :P
[23:56] <nhandler> IdleOne: They still need to demonstrate significant and sustained contributions like with normal membership (we can't change that)
[23:56] <Seeker`> nhandler: and what defines signficiant?
[23:57] <nhandler> Seeker`: "significant and sustained" comes from w.u.c/Membership