[00:00] <persia> It's been something like 4 months since one member of the DMB retired and we might have a new one in a few weeks.  25 days is faster than some groups act.  (yes, this is a problem, but take it in comparison to others, and realise we can't complain usefully: better to praise when things happen quickly)
[00:00] <elky> Seeker`, we need to identify what the breaking points are before we can do any referendum'ing.
[00:01] <elky> discussions to lay out these breaking points are so far being hushed away by various means
[00:02] <Seeker`> elky: can you think of others that I didn't list, just off the top of your head?
[00:02] <Seeker`> persia: I can't think of a good reason for a 25 day turnaround for a 300-word email
[00:02] <elky> Seeker`, i think the lack of definition of the core ops is not a problem in itself, but an indicator of problems
[00:03] <elky> Seeker`, the processes being made are broken.
[00:03] <persia> elky, So, let's identify them.  I don't see any hushing.  The trick is just to identify issues and postitions *without* getting involved in discussion at first.
[00:03] <elky> persia, lack of discussions outside of meetings is one of the problems.
[00:04] <elky> Saying something only to be greeted with "put it on the agenda" of a meeting I can't make doesn't help at all.
[00:04] <persia> Seeker`, I'm ~200 days behind on one email I need to send.  25 days is unfortunate, but I really think the better way to solve these things is to commend prompt action, rather than complain about slow action.  As someone often behind, I know I respond better to carrots than sticks.
[00:04] <elky> It doesn't /look/ like hushing, but the people saying this know darn well what the effect is.
[00:04] <persia> elky, Agreed.  Get someone else to put "rotating meeting times" on the agenda, and I'll join you once it's approved :)
[00:05] <Seeker`> Items are also postponed for meeting after meeting, usually due to 1 person unable to make it
[00:05] <elky> Seeker`, and a council that was only half there and didn't move to fix that issue.
[00:06] <elky> and being on the AO RMB, I know full well how hard that /can/ be, but there was an excess of applicants a year ago... it's not impossible.
[00:07] <nhandler> persia: They are 20:00 UTC and 18:00 UTC, so there are 2 different times, but neither would probably work well for you sadly
[00:08] <Seeker`> often discussions with the IRCC seem to head along the lines of: "6 months ago, X was supposed to happen, what happened to it?" and the response is either a shrug or "we are working on drafting a proposal for a discussion on whether we should consider it"
[00:08] <elky> 2 hours difference isn't rotation
[00:08] <persia> nhandler, No, not really (nor elky, who has nearly the same time constraints as I)
[00:08] <Seeker`> elky: it is! before dinner, after dinner!
[00:09] <persia> Seeker`, I've encountered that with other councils/boards as well.  When I'm a member of the board, this makes me feel guilty.  When I'm not a member, I find that if I just draft something and submit it, this results in the board editing my draft and getting on with it.
[00:10] <Seeker`> persia: at the last meeting, ikonia was frustrated because the policy on managed/unmanaged shells hadn't progressed. He essentially emailed the IRCC a proposal months ago, and it hadn't been enacted yet
[00:11] <elky> Seeker`, was it only to the ircc list or to the irc list too?
[00:11] <persia> Needs to be to the irc list too, so everyone can participate in the discussion.
[00:12] <Seeker`> elky: I don't know, I'm only going by what was said in the meeting
[00:12] <persia> Leaving everything to the board makes it dependent on board time.
[00:12] <elky> i'd check, but my squirrelmail doesn't search well
[00:14] <Seeker`> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2010-August/001056.html
[00:15] <elky> ok good. if things go to -irc they can't get lost as easily
[00:16] <persia> That nobody responded though indicates the rest of us were leaving everything to ikonia, which isn't any more fair than leaving it to IRCC.
[00:16] <persia> Nice to have it faster, but really, we need to all critique and improve things, so that the IRCC has maximum time to just implement the stuff we feed them.
[00:17] <Seeker`> http://novarata.net/mootbot/ubuntu-meeting.20101031_1305.html
[00:17] <Seeker`> and the actual approval was then
[00:18] <Seeker`> the proposal is essentially unchanged from the original one ikonia sent to the list in august
[00:18] <Seeker`> it didn't even require a redraft, yet still took 3 months to get approved
[00:18] <persia> Do we have an agreed set of requirements for server shell hosts to have to be allowed to use ubuntu core channels?
[00:19] <Seeker`> persia: basically, they have to care what their users are doing
[00:19] <Seeker`> if we can complain about a user and they get reprimanded by the shell company, they are allowed
[00:19] <persia> Sure, but my point is that the mail sent only requested an action item, rather than presenting a policy.
[00:20] <Seeker`> persia: see the "my proposal is:" section at the bottom of the email? That is exactly what was implemented.
[00:20] <Seeker`> ikonia's "eg" for the set of requirements? Thats what is being used as the set of requirements AIUI.
[00:20] <persia> Seeker`, Then we *don't* have an agreed set of requirements, and that's a problem.
[00:21] <persia> Ah, OK.
[00:21] <persia> The problem with governance is that there are so many stupid semantic tripfalls.
[00:22] <persia> Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are easy ways around them (this is why many larger organisations (millions of people) tend to have professional politicians who learn their ways around them).
[00:22] <Seeker`> http://novarata.net/mootbot/ubuntu-meeting.log.20101031_1305.html#5
[00:22] <Seeker`> thats the discussion about it
[00:22] <elky> The problem with governing open source hackers is that they're too beeping semantics-minded.
[00:22] <Seeker`> the council were taking so long to do anything about it, ikonia essentially implemented the suggested policy, and the council only just agreed to formalise it
[00:23] <persia> elky, If you think that is true, I encourage you to read your local statutes.  Our semantics are *easy*
[00:23] <elky> the problem with ubuntu's governance is that we are made to feel obliged to humor the semantics trolls.
[00:23] <persia> Folk who care about semantics aren't trolls.  Semantics are important.  Semantics are why we care about what we do.
[00:23] <elky> persia, right which is why we still use dvds in our linux computers, etc.
[00:24] <persia> the only reason "Ubuntu" means anything at all to any of us is because of the attached semantics.
[00:24] <elky> persia, uh, i wasn't saying all semantics-minded people are. but the ones we get caught up in no-win arguments with tend to be
[00:24] <Seeker`> I'm still not sure that this level of semantics is important for IRC though. You have ops. Ops ban trolls. If there are a group of trolls, ops ban the group of trolls.
[00:24] <persia> Sure.
[00:25] <Seeker`> Yes, the IRCC should be there as a seperate appeals process
[00:25] <persia> But perhaps some of that is restrictions we place upon ourselves.
[00:25] <persia> Do we expect IRCC to approve wide-IP bans?
[00:25] <persia> No, we just do them, and if a ban is too wide, the op can suffer when someone lifts it.
[00:25] <Seeker`> persia: review, maybe, approve, no
[00:25] <persia> Why wasn't the same attitude taken for the shell bans (it was defacto, but folk seem concerned)
[00:26] <Seeker`> ikonia tried to get the IRCC to approve it before he did it, but they didn't do anything useful, so he did it anyway, because it was causing such a problem for the op team
[00:27] <persia> Sure, but my point is that in terms of number of users it isn't that different than wide IP bans.
[00:27] <Seeker`> when you have real time communication, waiting 3 months for a decision is impossibly slow
[00:27] <persia> So I'm not sure why we, as ops, needed to wait for IRCC to approve it.  And if we decided to wait in this case, I don't see why IRCC should have considered it a priority.
[00:29] <Seeker`> persia: if the official documented policy needs to exist for the action to stay in place, the policy should be documented and actioned in a timely manner
[00:29] <Seeker`> if they policy doesn't need to exist for the action to remain, why waste time documenting it?
[00:30] <persia> Maybe someone felt like documenting it to save discussion because of concern about later reviews?
[00:30] <Seeker`> if this documentation stuff is really that important to IRC being run correctly, it should be done in timescales within a few orders of magnitude of the medium, not months for real time chat.
[00:31] <Seeker`> persia: the point is, it is the job of the IRCC to decide this stuff.
[00:32] <Seeker`> They aren't making the decisions quickly enough. Technically, ops don't have the authority to make those decisions, but we have to anyway because the IRCC is so slow in making them themselves
[00:33] <persia> Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see how it's different from a wide IP ban.
[00:34] <Seeker`> As I was trying to say earlier, taking 2 months to decide something which has an impact on what is happening in the next 6 months (i.e. for the next release) is relatively ok. Taking 2 months for a decision on real-time communication is bad
[00:34] <Seeker`> Its the logical equivalent of placing a ban on an ISP, which we can only ever do temporarily really
[00:34] <Seeker`> if at all
[00:34] <Seeker`> brb, shower
[00:37] <persia> I guess.  I think of that sort of thing as stuff to just do and document for review, but maybe I'm too into empowerment.
[00:41] <Seeker`> bk
[00:43] <Seeker`> temporary ISP-wide bans might be ok, but generally it is considered a "bad thing"; We were getting so many problems with shell users that it was in effect a permanent ISP-wide ban; a permanent ban is something that needs to be decided by the IRCC, and I imagine that the thought of placing a long-term wide-ranging ban also doesn't sit well with most ops
[00:45] <persia> Ah, OK.  This is a nuance of policy that goes beyond my understanding (one of the reasons I described myself as "junior" earlier is my limited grasp of policy)
[00:46] <persia> In that case, it does make sense for IRCC to take action, and it does seem to have taken an awfully long time.
[00:46] <Seeker`> it isn't really a policy, I doubt it is really codified anywhere
[00:46] <persia> We ought fix that.
[00:47] <Seeker`> but i think it is just general good operator practice that you don't set wide bans for longer than you have to, espcially in channels like #ubuntu
[00:48] <persia> Indeed.  It does seem good practice.  I just thought the policy was do-it-and-get-reviewed
[00:49] <Seeker`> if it were, I suspect jewkonia would have been declared ban-on-sight by now.
[00:51] <persia> Some folk just ask for it, and that's why we're here, sadly.
[00:54] <tonyyarusso> sigh, what'd I do now?  *scrollbacks*
[00:55] <persia> tonyyarusso, Failed to tell us to shut up fast enough? :)
[00:57] <tonyyarusso> I wasn't aware open calls for ops were supposed to be secret.  If you want to circle the wagons and keep the possible pool to the smallest group possible, knock yourself out, but don't blame me when you miss out on good people who didn't happen to be in it.
[02:54] <derp> Hello, i found a old ban that is not applying anymore
[02:55] <IdleOne> derp: ??
[02:56] <derp> #ubuntu $r:"For?you?ST47?:)?<3?w00t" set by lindbohm.freenode.net (Fri Jun 25 05:47:20)
[02:56] <derp> It was valid 3 years ago
[02:58] <derp> when i had my botnet
[02:59] <derp> Now, i don't.
[04:54] <IdleOne> I set a ban on *!*@*.ice.net not sure if it is one user or multiple users but they all seem to be trolls. Always offtopic and annoying.
[04:56] <IdleOne> there has been multiple bans set on multiple diiferent IPs from that host.
[05:00] <IdleOne> Now I am getting threats in #freenode
[08:51] <bazhang> gapwk connecting from same host; have him muted and in PM (no response so far)
[08:52] <jussi> I got a lovely motherfu... pm from joseraul
[08:58] <bazhang> joseraul reconnected as vaina, have him in PM also, no response
[09:00] <bazhang> both have quit, going to leave the mute for a bit longer though
[11:29] <gnomefreak> bot reminds you to review bans in pm :)
[11:37] <jussi> gnomefreak: it has for months! :D
[11:38] <gnomefreak> opps :) thanks
[11:42] <jussi> gnomefreak: it even waits till you are active before it bothers you
[11:43] <gnomefreak> cool, im likeing the bot more and more
[11:44] <gnomefreak> the link is bad i think
[11:44] <gnomefreak> @btlogin
[11:48] <gnomefreak> i hate this part
[11:50] <gnomefreak> :(
[11:50] <gnomefreak> ok why is the bot not letting me unban someone
[11:52] <gnomefreak> unban *!*@89.203.66.61
[11:52] <gnomefreak> or not
[11:53] <gnomefreak> unban @89.203.66.61
[11:53] <gnomefreak> jussi: any idea on why no matter what way i use it it doesnt lift ban
[11:54] <gnomefreak> its telling me i can only unban myself
[11:56] <gnomefreak> the script should do it for me but it seems to not work that way either
[12:06] <jussi> gnomefreak: te bot doesnt do unbans last time I checked...
[12:06] <jussi> ;)
[12:08] <gnomefreak> jussi: i know but seems either does chanserv
[12:08] <gnomefreak> figured i would try bot ;)
[12:10] <jussi> gnomefreak: why not just op and /mode -b ?
[12:10] <gnomefreak> because it told me to do that
[12:10] <gnomefreak> ill try
[12:11] <gnomefreak> jussi: thanks
[12:11] <gnomefreak> that is way to simple
[15:06] <sjm> I've got a suggestion for a change in wording for ubottu.
[15:08] <sjm> for the !fakeraid factoid, it seems to equate software raid with fakeraid.  Could you change the "For software RAID" to something like "For motherboard RAID" or "For BIOS ("hardware") RAID" or something like that?
[15:09] <sjm> !fakeraid
[15:17] <ikonia> sjm: it' not motherboard raid, or bios raid, it's actually fakeraid
[15:40] <sjm> ikonia, but it's configured in the BIOS.  The current wording is confusing.  It implies that Software RAID is "FakeRAID"
[15:47] <ikonia> it is
[15:49] <sjm> no, fakeRAID is software RAID, but software RAID is not alway fakeRAID.
[16:06] <popey> It should be clearer on 'Hardware RAID vs Linux Software RAID (MD) vs FakeRAID (DM)' IMO
[16:13] <sjm> That's really my point.  Most people that have been around Linux understand the differences and what the terms 'Hardware RAID, Linux Software RAID (MD), FakeRAID (DM)' signify.  But in a support forum where there are many coming from the Windows world, that's not true and the ubottu factoid should be clearer.
[16:14] <popey> I agree
[16:15] <sjm> Many coming from the Windows world would understand "motherboard" or "bios" raid sooner then "fakeraid"
[16:26] <ikonia> I'm reading the wiki page and the wiki page isn't really a good and current page
[16:26] <ikonia> I'll see if there is something I can do with that first
[23:18] <Seeker`> Jordan_U: I'm speaking to him
[23:20] <IdleOne> Seeker`: can you mention he not make threats to him also please. <ubunrtwgold> virustb i am scanning ur system
[23:21] <Seeker`> IdleOne: I've told him that sort of attitude isn't appropriate when he wsaid that virus wasn't that intelligent
[23:21] <IdleOne> ok
[23:24] <Seeker`> -23:17:36- Seeker`: that sort of attitude isn't really appropriate for #ubuntu. Please try to be polite.
[23:24] <Seeker`> -23:17:50- ubunrtwgold: ?
[23:24] <Seeker`> -23:18:04- Seeker`: -23:17:10- :ubunrtwgold : virustb you aren't inteligent
[23:24] <Seeker`> -23:21:55- Seeker`: neither are threats like "I'm scanning your system"
[23:24] <Seeker`> -23:22:37- ubunrtwgold: shut up i am working
[23:25] <IdleOne> I just removed him