/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/11/03/#ubuntu-ops.txt

Jordan_Usyrius is trolling in #ubuntu00:54
Jordan_U_16BitSubsystem_ As well00:54
IdleOnelooking00:54
Jordan_UThanks.00:55
IdleOneSince the trigger was just recently used I think we need to reevaluate the use of !away. I think that when a user sets an |away nick and sending them that factoid is a little over kill. I understand if there are multiple nick changes then it becomes annoying. I think !away should be used when there is an annoying away message being sent to channels only.01:03
persiaI think it has much greater applicability in low-volume channels.  Lots of times a channel shows activity drawing several regulars when nothing is happening, and I tend to be aggressive using !away to ensure that folk still respond, rather than getting that cried-wolf feeling.01:05
IdleOnepersia: I am sorry to say, but I just read what you said 4 times and sadly I have no idea what you said. perhaps it is me not reading it properly I don't know.01:09
persiaSo, some channels have low activity.  There are often some people who will notice *any* activity in that channel, and head over there (strong specific interest).01:10
persiaWhen someone has nick changes due to being away, that causes apparent channel traffic, drawing these folk.01:10
persiaWhen it happens a lot, these folk stop responding so quickly, as an increasing number of their responses provide no content.01:10
persiaSo, for these channels, I tend to be fairly strict about enforcing avoidance of nick-change-on-away so that the special-interest folk continue to be available on demand.01:11
persiaFor channels with lots of traffic, where habitues need to watch more, and not switch back for every entered line, this may be less critical.01:11
IdleOnemight just be me but I don't think that a simple nick change every few hours is that big of a problem in any size channel.01:13
IdleOnewhen the away nick is accompanied by an away message being spammed to the channel, yes that is a issue.01:14
persiaMakes a *huge* difference in channels that get 1-2 conversations a day, like #ubuntu-powerpc01:15
persiaThere's only 5-6 people who consistently do powerpc support, but having them all jump everytime someone wanders off for a while doesn't encourage them to keep jumping.01:16
Seeker`a sensible client will have different alerts for "nick change" to "someone said something"01:18
Seeker`IdleOne: one person nick changing isn't a problem, 200 is01:18
persiaSeeker`, Yeah, well, I guess we need patches for some clients then :)01:18
IdleOneWell the issue is not that important to me. I was just thinking out loud a guess.01:19
IdleOnes/a/I01:19
Flannelhttp://sackheads.org/~bnaylor/spew/away_msgs.html01:19
persiaNot incredibly important to me either: just wanted to provide a counterexample.01:20
=== evilnhandler is now known as nhandler
ubottuGnea called the ops in #ubuntu (ucenik21 and ucenik13 are flooding around the floodbots)08:54
Tm_T...someone with proper connection and a keyboard ^08:57
ubottuDJones called the ops in #ubuntu (ucenik13 is back)09:22
ubottuFloodBot1 called the ops in #ubuntu-ops-monitor (BANLIST FULL, REMOVE SOME BANS)10:34
ikoniawe need to stop the floodbot auto open proxy detection11:00
ikoniait's filling up the ban list11:00
ikoniawhy is ljl's metabot banned in #ubuntu ?11:03
Tm_Terr?11:06
Mamarokikonia: because it is runnign wild, reconnecting every few minutes11:06
Mamarokcheck #ubuntu-meta11:06
ikoniaok, so shall we ask him to stop using it or try to get him a stable host to run it on11:06
persiaProbably better to offer the choice11:06
Mamarokstable host is preferred :)11:06
jussiits not such a big issue to deal with if it is a problem is it? yes, we would like a stable host, but still, remember someone is giving this service to us free - interuptions happen on occaision.11:09
ikoniait's not happening on occasion11:12
ikonialjl's host in general has been flakey11:12
ikoniaI'll get him on one of my boxes in a DC11:12
persiaSo, the options are 1) to help him get a more stable host, 2) to lose the service during periods of instability11:12
ikoniathat will make it go away11:12
persiaGood choice :)11:13
jussiexcellent. I was just wary of saying to someone "get a new host or get out"11:13
ikoniathere has to be some rules on running a bot11:14
ikoniaa stable host must be one11:14
ikonia(everyone gets some interuption11:14
ikonia)11:14
Picioops12:31
chandru_inMy IP address is being blocked when I try to join #ubuntu.  How are these IPs to block decided?12:37
persiaMostly based on previous abuse from those IPs.12:37
bazhang FloodBot1 has kicked chandru_in from #ubuntu (Open proxies are not allowed)12:37
persia(no, this isn't perfect: help make IPv6 a reality, and abolish NATs and dynamic IPs)12:37
chandru_inIt is not an open-proxy.  Sometime back a spam bot infected us and so I guess we're blacklisted.  Anyway to get ourself whitelisted?12:38
persiaNeeds discussion with an #ubuntu operator.  Hang out here a bit and one will help you.12:40
chandru_inthanks persia12:40
bazhangchandru_in, try now12:45
chandru_inno luck bazhang12:45
bazhangchandru_in, still fixing, sorry about that12:45
chandru_inno problem12:46
bazhangchandru_in, try again please12:49
bazhangchandru_in, success?12:50
chandru_inthanks bazhang it did work12:50
chandru_in:)12:50
bazhangchandru_in, sorry for the mixup12:51
chandru_inno problem, bazhang.  It is a minor inconvenience to keep the spam out12:51
bazhangLjL has suggested when he's not around to ask said users to get a cloak to workaround12:54
Picibazhang: thanks, sorry I had to step away.13:00
bazhangPici, no problem :)13:00
ikoniaare we really comfortable with this open proxy detection from the floodbots ?13:41
Tm_Thmmh, should go through the bans and comment them...13:47
jussiikonia: why shouldnt we be?13:56
ikoniawell, it's placing a lot of bans, are they all tried and tested14:04
ikoniaare they all valid14:04
Tm_Thi/hei SerzZ14:05
Piciheh14:21
Tm_TI'm still behind very slow and choppy gsm connection so don't count on me14:22
Tm_TPM:d him14:25
Tm_Thopefully bbehaves14:26
ubottuFloodBotK2 called the ops in #kubuntu-ops-monitor (mass join (290 users, 0 overflows, 290 limit))14:33
ubottuFloodBotK1 called the ops in #kubuntu-ops-monitor (mass join (284 users, 1 overflows, 285 limit))14:34
Tm_TI have to go14:50
Tm_Tback for a moment, anyone have an idea from where SerzZ is possibly banforwarded?15:26
PiciI don't see anything using the bot.15:26
PiciSerzZ: Can we help you?15:26
Tm_TPici: see idle time (:15:27
jussiTm_T: I see nothing with the bt even15:27
Tm_Tright, I wonder how he ended up here, as he just sent me email about something else15:28
PiciOh, thats the same guy?15:28
Tm_Tnever seen him before15:29
Tm_Tor atleast don't remember15:29
Tm_Toh well, will ask him, thanks (:15:33
elkyUh. Mahen23 is now joining -women to soliciting hugs.18:14
pleia2second one this week18:14
elkymahen23 has been lurking around in -ot for a while18:15
Picimeh.18:15
PiciSorry for feeding, I forgot that he doesn't idle there.18:15
=== nhandler_ is now known as nhandler
Seeker`should we not wait until core-channels and core-ops have been properly defined before recruiting more ops?21:41
persiaIf there's a shortage of ops causing issues, I think it ought be safe to try to get channel-specific ops prior to a definition (but wait for a real answer from IRCC)21:46
Seeker`persia: if there is a shortage of ops causing issues, it is a good reason to the definitions sorted ASAP21:47
Seeker`persia: seeing as they have been awaiting definition for quite a while21:47
IdleOneI don't understand why we need to apple for ops in -ops21:47
IdleOneapply*21:47
persiaI guess.  As someone who finds the idea of "core channels" distasteful, I'm tempted not to ever define them, but I do see your point.21:48
Seeker`persia: same here. But there seems to need to be a definition of both core-channels and core-ops. I believe the former has been defined, the latter hasn't really.21:48
Seeker`IdleOne: For a laugh? Because the IRCC doesn't already have enough to do? Because the current definition of what a core-ops is is currently broken? All of the above?21:49
ts2do you want us to define a core-op, and then have people apply to be a core-op (if needed)? or do you just want to get some more ops in here?21:49
ts2I'm confused as what you're asking for here21:49
persiats2, I think rather it would be good to have more ops on channels in need of more coverage.21:49
IdleOnets2: honestly I am confused about the email asking for people to apply to be an op in this channel21:50
ts2-ops is a core channel, people must apply to be ops in core channels21:50
Seeker`ts2: I've requested more ops in here on several occasions, and each time I was told that it depends on getting both core-channels and core-ops defined21:50
IdleOnebut I am already an op in a core channel21:50
IdleOne#ubuntu is a core channel21:50
Seeker`ts2: I've not yet seen a definition (or an agreement from the IRCC) on the latter.21:51
ts2IdleOne: so?21:51
IdleOneso why do I need to apply for ops in here?21:51
ts2IdleOne: people must apply to be ops in core channels21:51
IdleOneor am I mistunderstanding something about the email?21:51
Seeker`ts2: And there are several people trying to get a discussion sorted about what a core-op is at the moment, including members of the IRCC21:51
Seeker`IdleOne: Being an op in a core channel doesn't mean you are a core op.21:52
ts2Seeker`: we have decided to get more ops here while that's being decided, yet you seem to disagree?21:52
Seeker`IdleOne: for some reason.21:52
Seeker`ts2: If you desperately need more ops in here, give people ops. If it isn't that desperate, get stuff defined first.21:52
IdleOnebut the IRCC already has a pool of core channel ops to chose from. Why do we need to apply?21:52
ts2because -ops is a core channel21:53
persiaIdleOne, Consider it instead, expressing a willingness to serve.21:53
IdleOnethat isn't an answer21:53
Seeker`persia: but it isn't that; It is an application21:53
Seeker`persia: the fact that we are idling here is expressing a willingness to serve.21:53
ts2yes it is, you must apply to have +o in each core channel (that's the process)21:53
Seeker`ts2: where can I find the definition of a core op?21:53
persiaSeeker`, You're right: see earlier comment about my thoughts on "core" :)21:54
ts2Seeker`: we are not talking about a core op21:54
IdleOnets2: did you apply to have ops in here?21:54
ts2no, it was added before the process21:54
IdleOnedid any of the IRCC or current ops in this channel21:54
IdleOneso all the current ops get grand fathered in21:55
Seeker`ts2: where does it state that you have to apply for ops in each and every channel?21:55
ts2IdleOne: at least for now, if you want to propose somethig else, you should add an item to the meeting agenda21:55
ts2Seeker`: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorRequirements21:56
Seeker`ts2: The OperateorRequirements document only talks about becoming a channel-specific operator. Which I already am.21:56
IdleOneI am not going to add any item to the meeting agenda. I am also not going to apply for something I have already applied for and was approved to be, a core channel op.21:56
Seeker`IdleOne: but that isn't a core-op. For some reason.21:57
IdleOneif that means I won't have +o in this channel, so be it.21:57
ts2Seeker`: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorRequirements#Operator%20application%20proces21:57
IdleOneHonestly I am insulted by the separatist attitude that has been creeping into this team. core channel op, core-ops.21:58
IdleOneit scares me.21:58
Seeker`ts2: But I am already a channel-specific operator, and was before that document was drafted, doesn't that mean it doesn't apply?21:59
IdleOnethe IRCC is the core-op team but now we need a sub team of core-ops21:59
ts2core-ops is non-existant right now, how can something which does not exist scare you?21:59
ts2Seeker`: only for the channel(s) you already have +o in21:59
IdleOnean invisibility suit doesn't exist either but the posibility of it still scares me21:59
Seeker`ts2: it can scare him becuase it is something that is planned?22:00
ts2no, it's planned to be considered22:00
ts2the IRCC has not decided to implement anything yet22:00
Seeker`ts2: it has. According to jussi.22:00
Seeker`He stated in the UDS discussion last week that it had been decided by the IRCC that a core-op would be someone that is an op on all core channels.22:01
Seeker`So which is it? The IRCC has agreed on it? Or are they planning on talking about implementing it?22:01
ts2the IRCC is discussing it22:02
PiciI think that the fact that we're even all confused about it means that somewhere the process has broken down and either it is flawed, or perhaps the policy in question is also flawed.22:02
IdleOneThere is flaw in there somewhere that is for sure22:03
persiaI certainly heard some concerns as a result of that statement in the UDS session, and have been assuming it was a personal statement, rather than a formal resolution.22:03
Seeker`Pici: that was kinda my original point. If the IRCC doesn't even know what it is doing, is right now really the time to be recruting more ops?22:03
ts2Seeker`: recruting more ops has nothing to do with the core-ops issue22:03
Seeker`ts2: it has everything to do with it.22:03
ts2only if we decide to implement core-ops22:04
Seeker`ts2: Seeing as I have been told several times that getting more ops in here is dependant on the term being defined22:04
ts2as that hasn't happened, it does not22:04
Seeker`ts2: you already have!22:04
Seeker`There are two types of operators in the Ubuntu IRC channels, Core Operators and Channel Specific Operators.22:04
Seeker`A Core Operator is someone who has operator status in all of the Ubuntu core channels.22:04
Seeker`There is a definition of a core op on the operator requirements page22:04
Seeker`but its a definition that not all the IRCC seem to believe they have agreed to22:05
Seeker`and is a severely broken definition22:05
ts2that page was wrote when we were planning core-ops, so it was included there. we also created the LP teams for that22:05
nhandlerSeeker`: We said that we might not have a need to recruit operators for this channel if we get the core op team established (as that would also serve to provide more operators in here). As there currently are no such operators, we are putting out a call for more channel operators in here like we have done for other core channels in the past22:05
IdleOneto be an op in here you have to be an existing op in a core-channel?22:06
Seeker`nhandler: So why have my requests for more operators in here before been denied due to the pending definition of what a core op is?22:06
nhandlerIdleOne: To apply to be an OP in here, yes22:06
PiciBut not a core-operator... which is different.  Its confusing.22:06
nhandlerSeeker`: They were delayed22:06
ts2IdleOne: see our idle policy22:07
Seeker`nhandler: is there a difference?22:07
persiaI'd volunteer as an op here if the definition were different, but I don't have the attention to track most of the current "core channels" enough to have any interest in being an op there.22:07
Seeker`persia: there is a difference between a core-op and a core-channel op22:07
IdleOnenhandler: I don't think I should have to apply for op status in this channel. actually I think by not having ops in this channel my ability to be effective when resolving issues is limited.22:08
Seeker`you would be applying for the latter22:08
ts2for the final time, the call for ops in here has nothing to do with the core-ops issue22:08
nhandlerSeeker`: Yeah. Denied means that it won't happen until the definition does. Delayed means that we wanted to wait to see if the core ops would get established22:08
Seeker`ts2: so why was I told it did in the past?22:08
persiaSeeker`, Sure, but I don't believe I qualify for either.22:08
Seeker`nhandler: I was told that it would not happen until the definition does. Therefore it was denied.22:08
Seeker`I don't honestly see how you can be recruiting more ops when members of the IRCC cannot agree on what has been defined and what the definitions actually mean. The IRCC is currently extremely broken, and recruiting more people in to the mess is a pretty dumb idea.22:11
ts2Seeker`: recruting more ops in here has nothing to do with the core-ops issue22:11
Seeker`I get different answers about things from different members of the IRCC, and the answers I get from individual members isn't even self-consistent.22:12
Seeker`ts2: Please explain why I was told it was dependant on it before then?22:12
ts2if we were waiting on a definition, we would not ask for ops here22:12
ts2Seeker`: because we didn't want -ops to be a special-case22:13
Seeker`If it is not dependant, why was I told on multiple occasions that it was?22:13
nhandlerSeeker`: Look at the meeting logs from 2 meetings ago. I believe this was all discussed there22:13
Seeker`nhandler: what date was that?22:14
nhandlerSeeker`: I don't know from memory. Probably second week of October (or around there)22:14
Seeker`nhandler: nothing on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/IRCC or https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2010-October/date.html#start for that time period.22:15
Seeker`nhandler: so where are the minutes / log?22:16
nhandlerSeeker`: Not sure if the minutes/logs got prepared. The raw irc logs are still availabe on irclogs.ubuntu.com22:16
Seeker`nhandler: so who failed at "Reference meeting log at MeetingLogs/IRCC" from the fixed agenda items?22:17
nhandlerSeeker`: It isn't "failing". And the negative attitude isn't helpful. We all have real lives and other obligations. We do as much as we can for Ubuntu in our free time, but other things do come up. You are more than welcome to prepare minutes if you want to. Otherwise, they will get done when someone gets a chance22:18
Seeker`nhandler: there was a regular agenda item that wasn't covered. That is a failure on the part of whoever chose to chair the meeting to carry out their duties. If you use mootbot, it isn't even hard to get the logs.22:19
PiciFine.  Someone messed up.22:20
nhandlerNo, someone got busy. This really isn't the end of the world. Sure, having minutes are nice (which is why we added that bullet). But this isn't the first time they haven't gotten done and it won't be the last. Other teams (including councils, development teams, and LoCos) all have similar things happen22:21
nhandlerAs the person who prepares the monthly team reports, I would like to mention that the IRCC is actually one of the better teams when it comes to preparing detailed minutes from their meetings22:22
Seeker`nhandler: Ah, you're defensive because you chaired that meeting?22:22
PiciYes, but as I mentioned at the UDS session, we're not too good at documenting what we do outside of the meetings.22:22
nhandlerSeeker`: No clue, I might have. But I'm defensive because you are attacking instead of trying to have a constructive discussion at this point22:23
Seeker`nhandler: because there has been such a big deal over transparency and process in the IRCC over the last year, so much time spent defining procedures, and they aren't even being followed.22:23
nhandlerSeeker`: Then help us out instead of simply attacking.22:24
PiciStating the issues is helpful, but we need to move beyond that and come up with fixes.22:25
Seeker`nhandler: I'm not the one that said I have the time to do the job by applying for it. If I could guarantee I had the time for it, I would apply myself this time round; Sadly due to health issues I can;t.22:25
IdleOneIssue: This channel needs more ops, the op call in the email and the calls from current ops on multiple occasions is proof of that. Fix: Take the existing pool of ops and add them to the access list for this channel.22:28
PiciSeeker`: You don't need to be on the council to help us.  And I hope that the health issues aren't serious, you're a valued part of the team.22:28
PiciEr, that sounded a bit weird, I do really mean it though.22:29
Seeker`Well the issues are a) The IRCC can't agree on what it has decided; b) There isn't a consistent definition of what it has (or hasn't) decided on c) The IRCC spends an eternity definiting procedures and documents, resulting in nothing getting done; d) The procdures that took forever to be defined in the interests of transparency and accountability aren't even followed22:29
Seeker`The solution: Stop taking 6 weeks to define something simply and follow the procedures the IRCC defined22:30
Seeker`There was an agreement that there are more ops needed in here and for this channel to be treated like any other channel on the 9th october22:31
nhandlerAnd that is what led to this email22:31
Seeker`it took 25 days for that email to then be sent out22:31
nhandlerSeeker`: Yeah, with UDS in the middle and other stuff going on.22:32
Seeker`ts2: how long did that email take to write?22:32
PiciDoes it matter?22:32
IdleOnebut this channel is not like any other channel. This is the channel we send users to when there is a problem. When that user is even more of a problem in this channel most of us can't do anything about it but hope that someone with +o in here is active.22:33
Seeker`Pici: My point is that the email didn't take (or shouldn't have taken) 25 days to write22:33
PiciSeeker`: You're right, but it did.22:33
Seeker`There are things that noone other than the IRCC can do. These things are not being done in a timely manner.#22:34
nhandlerIdleOne: Don't forget, we have *!*@freenode/staff/* on the access list for this channel (as well as all other channels). This means that if no OPs are around, staff can always help out22:34
nhandlerSeeker`: And writing an email is not one of them22:34
nhandlerOr at least drafting it isn't22:34
Seeker`nhandler: That specific email? Yes, imo22:35
Seeker`or could I send an email to the list right now opening applications for #ubuntu-server ops?22:35
IdleOnenhandler: freenode staff should not have to get involved. If we had +o in here we wouldn't need to bother them with trivial channel specific issues. Staff has bigger problems of their own to handle.22:35
PiciI personally think the problem is that no one attends our meetings, and we end up making decisions in a vaccuum.  As much as we want to make sure that we always have our operators and user's interests in mind we sometimes fail.  Then people only start to complain once we start putting procedures in place.22:35
Seeker`nhandler: you are sitting in a channel of 40 or so ops, why on earth do staff need to get involved?22:36
IdleOneI didn't get a reminder email for the last meeting.22:36
PiciThats why I'm chaning *my* mind on some of the stuff we've done, because I've realized that our operators hate it.22:36
ts2IdleOne: the times are not dynamic22:36
Seeker`Pici: Yes, that is a problem, but things like meeting minutes being written up, or taking 25 days to send a short email doesn't help.22:36
nhandlerIdleOne: The reminders are a convenience. The meetings are all on the fridge (like other meetings in the community) and on the wiki22:36
IdleOnenhandler: I am not blaming anyone about not getting a reminder email. Just saying that for me they are very convenient.22:37
Seeker`Pici: Since I realised just how badly off track this stuff seems to have gone, I've been to both IRCC meetings to try to contribute.22:37
nhandlerIdleOne: Glad you like them ;) It didn't help the meeting was Halloween in the US ;)22:37
PiciSeeker`: I'm glad you have.  I'm sorry we couldn't get to your issue last meeting.22:38
persiaNor that it was during UDS travel for many22:38
PiciI want us to succeed, and its hard when we don't get feedback until its too late.  There isn't a particular person to blame about that, I think we're all at fault.22:38
Seeker`Pici: can you give a summary of the workload for the IRCC during an average week?22:39
nhandlerSeeker`: Depends on the week. All I can say is that this week, things like this eat up a LOT of the free time we do have for working on Ubuntu22:39
PiciSeeker`: I can't pin down specifics, but we've been spending some time in the past few weeks dealing with loco channel issues, loco logging, etc.22:39
IdleOnenhandler: I apologize if I sound negative. I really am not trying to be. I just don't like the idea of separating op, core channel op, core-ops. I feel that the IRCC is the core-op team. the rest are channel ops. certain ops are asked to idle here as part of being an op in certain channels, I am fine with that but why do we need to idle here if we have no real ability to enforce the rules of this channel.22:41
IdleOneexample: I ask a user to part this channel after an hour of being called names and they refuse to, continue to insult and be rude. I have to call !ops in this channel (with the hope that someone is active with +o) in the mean time I have showed the active troll and the trolls who read the logs that I have no power so what I say means nothing.22:44
* Pici got hilighted by that.22:44
IdleOnesorry22:44
PiciIts okay ;)22:44
Seeker`One thing I do object to is being told I shouldn't use the ! ops trigger to get a troll removed from here when there isn't anything else going on22:45
PiciIdleOne: Thats the type of discussion I'd hope to see at this meeting... whenever it happens.22:45
Seeker`for idling etc.22:45
IdleOnePici: all this defining of core channels and core ops is a giant waste of time. this channel has more then enough ops currently in #ubuntu,#k,#x etc that if they were all added to the access list there would be no more need for us using the ops trigger in here.22:46
IdleOneI don't want god like powers but I do want all the trolls out there in "log reading land" to know that if they come to this channel they won't be able to get away with abusing us.22:47
nhandlerIdleOne: And that is certainly one possible solution that has been looked at (and will probably be looked at more in the future if necessary). We also have a few other solutions that we are thinking about to try and decide if they might prove to be even better solutions than either of these22:47
IdleOnebut right now you are asking for applications, which will take time. This issue is immediate and needs an immediate solution.22:48
IdleOneadd the current ops to the access list.22:49
PiciAs much as I don't like beauracracy and I don't you all don't like it either, we can't just do that if its against our current policies. Either we change the policies or we just don't do it.22:49
Pici(I also hate trying to remember how to spell beauracracy)22:50
Seeker`Are there not enough IRCC members here right now to be quorate? :P22:50
persiaAnd the policy changes have to happen in a meeting, for transparency, which is frustrating, but the alternative would be madness.22:50
IdleOnethe current policy?22:50
PiciIdleOne: The one you don't like.22:50
IdleOnethere is no clear and agreed upon policy22:50
IdleOneit's not just me who doesn't like it. there are other members on the ops team who don't like it.22:51
PiciIdleOne: I know.....22:51
IdleOnegood teams have great leaders, great leaders listen to what the team wants.22:52
IdleOnethe team does not want to wait for another month+ for this22:52
IdleOneimho22:52
PiciIdleOne: I want to get it sorted out this weekend.22:52
Seeker`Jussi still hasn't replied :/22:53
IdleOneI hope it can be22:53
IdleOnebureaucracy *22:55
IdleOneheh it was bugging me22:55
IdleOnesorry22:55
persiaIdleOne, It's not just bureaucracy: it's a *good* thing that policy changes happen in meetings, otherwise there's no way we can know what policy is unless we follow *everything*.  With policy changes restricted to meetings, we can review meeting minutes and know policy.22:56
Seeker`persia: sadly, meetings aren't properly documented atm, so it can be hard to know even when stuff is decided in meetings22:57
persiaSeeker`, I consider that a separate bug :)22:57
nhandlerSeeker`: It was one meeting. And they all happen on a set schedule, so it is not /too/ much effort to look up the logs on irclogs.ubuntu.com for that day22:58
IdleOnepersia: I agree with you on when and where policy should be made but if something is broke it needs to be fixed. Talking about maybe considering applying a policy and then pushing it back because every little word/title needs to be defined...uhg it smells of big government.22:58
persiaIt is governance.  We need to do it right.  We need to start from the basis that those we choose to govern us are doing their best, and ask how we can help to make it better.23:00
IdleOnewell won't way of making it worse is adding more layers of governance23:01
IdleOnes/won't/one23:01
Seeker`nhandler: fair enough. I'll just point you to the last action of that meeting http://novarata.net/mootbot/ubuntu-meeting.20101009_1500.html23:02
Seeker`which was preceded by [15:40:46] <nhandler> In that case, any volunteers to do the post-meeting tasks? If not, I'll do them.23:02
persiaIdleOne, I agree.  That's why I don't like "core".  I think we ought just have CC/IRCC/OPS, but that has scaling issues, and probably ends up burning out IRCC fast.23:02
Seeker`If people are volunteering for stuff they genuinely don't have time for, it needs to be stopped23:03
nhandlerSeeker`: Yes. I always ask for volunteers first. No one volunteered to do them, so they get done when I get a chance.23:03
IdleOneI think we need to stop trying to blame anybody for not having done something. Life happens.23:03
nhandlerSeeker`: You would rather have us say "Well, there are no volunteers, so they will not get done this meeting" ?23:03
PiciIdleOne: agreed.23:04
Seeker`nhandler: I would rather have people who say they will do something do it23:04
Seeker`imo, if you chair a meeting, you are implicitly saying you agree to do the associated work, and if you don't have time for it you shouldn't do it.23:05
persiaThere's a gap there.23:05
persiaNo.  Chairing a meeting is work needing doing, and adding responsibility for any unclaimed actions in the meeting only makes it harder to find chairs.23:05
Seeker`Thats why I wrote mootbot, to make it so easy you have the summary there already, with hyperlinks to the relevant places in the meeting.23:05
Seeker`persia: mootbot came about because I chaired a 2 hour long -uk meeting, which I then had to trawl to summarise, because I chaired it.23:06
PiciSeeker`: And we all love mootbot.23:06
PiciDon't think we don;t.23:06
persiaSeeker`, Ah, so your assertion is only that chairs should publish minutes, not that they should be responsible for declared actions?  I'm comforable agreeing to that.23:07
Seeker`persia: yes23:07
PiciGentlemen, as much as I'd like to continue talking about this, I'd also like to eat. So if you don't mind, don't treat my silence as not caring.23:07
PiciThank you.23:08
Seeker`Pici: enjoy23:08
IdleOneBon appetit23:08

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!