/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/11/07/#ubuntu-meeting.txt

=== czajkows1i is now known as czajkowski
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
=== oubiwann is now known as oubiwann-away
=== oubiwann-away is now known as oubiwann
Seeker`o/18:00
Picihi18:00
Seeker`jussi: ikonia: About?18:01
ikoniahi18:01
jussimoment pls18:02
IdleOneHello18:03
Seeker`just waiting on jussi, then I think we can start?18:04
Seeker`woo, 2 seconds of lag18:05
jussihi all18:05
Picihowdy18:05
IdleOneheyas18:05
topylihi, forgot to watch the watch18:05
jussiright. so who is leading this meeting? Seeker`?18:05
Seeker`jussi: fancy using mootbot? My connection appears to be doing strange things18:06
jussi#startmeeting18:06
MootBotMeeting started at 12:06. The chair is jussi.18:06
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]18:06
Seeker`Basically, to start, can we have a clear, concise defintion of the current plans for the core-ops team, as well as confirmation as to whether it is simply a plan, or has it been passed by the IRCC?18:07
jussi[topic]Basically, to start, can we have a clear, concise defintion of the current plans for the core-ops team, as well as confirmation as to whether it is simply a plan, or has it been passed by the IRCC?18:07
MootBotNew Topic: Basically, to start, can we have a clear, concise defintion of the current plans for the core-ops team, as well as confirmation as to whether it is simply a plan, or has it been passed by the IRCC?18:07
jussiAs I understand it, this is something the IRCC had planned last cycle, but havent implemented yet.18:08
ikoniaas a council member I'd expect better than "as I understand"18:08
ikoniaI want a clear definition of the status18:08
Seeker`By planned do you mean "Written a draft" or "agreed upon"?18:09
Seeker`And, if it is the latter, when was it agreed upon? (as per my email on wednesday)18:10
jussiRight. So, it has been agreed upon, last cyle, at UDS. You can find the definition of a core op on: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorRequirements18:11
Seeker`Ok. Is there a defintion of the function of a core-op?18:11
ikoniaaccording to that wiki, it's an operator of the core channels, that's it18:12
jussiSeeker`: inthe document I mentioned I beleive it shows what it is.18:12
ikoniaor "a" core channel18:12
topyliikonia: well that is it18:12
Seeker`"A Core Operator is someone who has operator status in all of the Ubuntu core channels."?18:12
ikoniajussi: so confirm, it is an operator who is an operatin in "a" core channel18:12
ikoniaahh, All of the core channels18:12
jussiikonia: no. it is. A Core Operator is someone who has operator status in all of the Ubuntu core channels.18:12
ikoniajussi: then there are no current core ops18:13
jussiOperators in the the Ubuntu Core operator Team will be required to mentor new operators.18:13
jussiThis means when a new operator is appointed, an Ubuntu Core operator will be assigned to them as a mentor to help, guide and answer any specific questions.18:13
jussiikonia: correct.18:13
ikoniaok18:13
Seeker`jussi: Is there a good reason for not having all users that are an operator on *A* core channel being given access on *all* core channel? (Possibly after  a probation period, as appropriate)18:13
PiciI suggested that recently... somewhere...18:14
PiciI forget when and where.18:14
jussiSeeker`: In my opinion yes. This is what I was so adamant about at UDS. Different channels operate differently, -offtopic is different to #u, Kubuntu channels are different again. I dont think we should be giving every op in one of the core chans access in all of them without thinking if they are suited for the purpose or even want that responsibility18:15
ScottKSeeker`: Some people have access on particular channels, but don't care to be involved in others.18:16
ikoniaso then the definition of a core-op is wrong18:16
topyliwell the bottom line is, it would be useful for emergencies (and any op knows an emergency when they see one. but a #ubuntu op won't necessarily know what -devel is like18:16
jussiikonia: how so?18:16
Seeker`jussi: so, to be clear, someone that is a core-op will have a duty to be intimately familiar with the operation on each and every channel on the core channels list?18:16
Seeker`jussi: and, furthermore, is there anyone that currnetly meets that definition?18:16
topyliSeeker`: that's incorrect18:17
topylii would suggest no such duty. they would have ops on all channels so they can aid in emergencies18:17
ikoniajussi: well, it's an operator that has +o in all the core channels, yet you've just said that people can have ops in a core channel but not be suitable for another core channel. So will core channels have core channel ops and non-core channel ops ?18:17
ikoniawhat you appear to actually be suggesting is 2 teirs, a senior op and a standard op18:18
jussiikonia: A Core Operator is someone who has operator status in all of the Ubuntu core channels.18:18
jussiA Channel Specific Operator is an operator who has access in one or more core channels, but not all.18:18
Seeker`topyli: not based on what jussi just said. If the reason that an op can't be given access to all channels is because the channels operate differently, a core-op will have to understand the operation of each of the core channels before they can be given the core-op status.18:18
ikoniaok, lets step back18:19
jussiNow, May I point you all to read my email to the list about 1/2 hour ago, as it affects this situation.18:19
topyliwe have different [topics] here, Seeker`18:19
ikonia1.) are the council all in agreement of what a core op is18:19
ikoniayes/no18:19
ScottKSeeker`: I have +o on some channels.  I have no interest in it being global.18:19
Seeker`ScottK: you don't have to use +o on channels that you don't want to.18:19
ScottKSeeker`: That's correct.  It's nothing to do with needing to learn stuff.18:20
topyliikonia: as documented on the wiki, yes18:20
Picitopyli: agreed.18:20
ikoniatopyli: ok, so the definition on the wiki is all 5 members agreement of a core op18:20
ikoniaexcellent, that's one thing clarified18:20
PiciBut I'm not sure I *like* the current incarnation.18:20
Seeker`jussi: I don't see anything that directly affects the definition or duties of a core op in that email, just what channels people are expected to hang out in.18:21
ikoniaPici: noted, but with al 5 of you agreeing on what a core op is, is there a reason this hasn't been implemented/started18:21
jussiSeeker`: I dont see a need for "core ops". In that definition, there are no core chans, and no core ops.18:21
jussiikonia: Its been about how you become a core op (form my perspective)18:22
ikoniajussi: how do you ?18:22
Seeker`jussi: your email only says that the scope of -ops is extended across the namespace, not that the current, agreed upon definition of a core op will go away.18:23
jussiikonia: you abpply to the ircc. However, Im talking about the criteria required for us to say yes.18:23
jussiBoth types of operators are required to follow the requirements set out in this document. The process to become a Core Operator is the same as for a Channel Specific Operator, except for the following:18:23
jussiTo apply to become a Core Operator, you must first be an active operator in one, or more, of the core channels.18:23
ikoniajussi: ok, so this is anothe application thing18:24
Seeker`jussi: do core-ops have to be intimately familiar with the operation in each and every one of the core channels? yes or no?18:24
IdleOneThe culture in all the core channels should be the same if they all follow the same set of guidelines.18:25
PiciIn my opinion the basic definition of a core op is defined, but not the full expectations and responsibilities.18:25
ikoniaIdleOne: the culture of all channels within the ubuntu name space should be the sanme18:25
ScottKjussi: Just to be clear: This isn't the only way one can become a channel op.  I don't think Kubuntu gave away it's ability to appoint ops when they let the IRCC in.18:25
IdleOneikonia: agreed18:25
jussiScottK: thats correct.18:25
IdleOneso that would mean that any op from any channel should be able to op in any other channel.18:26
ScottKOK.18:26
ikoniaScottK: then that makes a joke of the recruitment processs18:26
jussiSeeker`: do you want my opinion or the ircc?18:26
Seeker`jussi: the ircc.18:26
bilalakhtarIs this the IRCC meeting?18:26
ikoniaScottK: to become an op you have to go through the recruitment process18:26
ikoniayes18:26
topyliit is?18:26
bilalakhtarI have applied to be an op for #ubuntu and #ubuntu-offtopic18:26
ScottKikonia: I'm not required to care.  Kubuntu Council gave IRCC access to Kubuntu channels and can take it away if IRCC interferes too much.18:26
jussiSeeker`: thats an unanswerable question givent your format of answers.18:26
ikoniaScottK: then the goverence is broken18:27
IdleOnebilalakhtar: this meeting is not for approving ops.18:27
ikoniaScottK: not that I disagree, but this is pointless process18:27
ScottKikonia: I'm fine with going back to the old way where Kubuntu ran it's old channels.18:27
tsimpsonikonia: the IRCC can't go stepping over other councils, and we don't intend to18:27
ikoniayou have to go through th process of becoming an op, unless you don't want to in which case the kubuntu team can just pick you18:27
ScottKold/own18:27
Seeker`jussi: it isn't an question that can have any other answer than yes or no. Either you have to be intimately familiar with the operaiton of every channel on the list or you dont18:27
ikoniatsimpson: yes it can18:27
ikoniatsimpson: you ARE responsible for the name space18:27
tsimpsonno, it can't18:27
ikoniatake responsability for the channels, or remove them from the name space18:27
PiciBoth councils should respect each other.18:27
ikoniakubuntu is the project, not the IRC ]18:28
ikoniaeither it complys with the ubuntu council's IRC policy or there is no point18:28
Seeker`jussi: which is it?18:28
ScottKikonia: No problem.  We'll move to OFTC.  We've done it before.18:28
ikoniaScottK: I'm not calling you for it at all, i just don't see the point of having an IRC council running the channels....unless other don't want it to18:28
IdleOneHold on, this is not about pushing any part of the community away18:28
ikoniait is either responsible for the namespace, or it's not18:29
tsimpsonno, Kubuntu should not have to move to OFTC. I think it's perfectly acceptable the the IRCC and Kubuntu council can work together18:29
topyliSeeker`: nobody is going to answer such a question now18:29
Seeker`topyli: why not?18:29
ScottKtsimpson: I agree.18:29
jussiSeeker`: neither. its undecided.18:29
ikoniatsimpson: it's not working together18:29
ikoniatsimpson: it's following the process, unless it doesn't want to18:29
Seeker`jussi: So over 6 months after the term was agreed upon, the conditions of gaining the position still haven't been defined?18:29
Seeker`Do you not think that is in the least bit ridiculous?18:30
tsimpsonikonia: ok, so we can have #kubuntu--*, but there will be no Kubuntu people there, great18:30
PiciYes. I think its very ridiculous.  And I think that we need to get back on the horse.18:30
ikoniatsimpson: well, what's the point of having the council if the kubuntu community can ignore it18:30
ikoniatsimpson: so you have a channel that does what it wants "great"18:30
Piciikonia: We need to work together. Just like the other Ubuntu teams do.  We're not in charge of them and they're not in charge of us.18:31
tsimpsonikonia: no, we work together. not because we impose restriction on each other, but because we choose to co-operate18:31
ikoniaPici: but you are defining policies that can be ignored18:31
ikoniawhat's the point ?18:31
Seeker`jussi: ok, at the moment there are core-channels and non-core channels. non-core channels (generally loco channels) are responsible for appointing their own ops, whereas core channels are done by the ircc. How will the appointing of ops be managed without the distinction between core and non-core channels? Will the IRCC be responsible for appointing loco ops?18:31
topylii'm unable to follow this. what's the topic?18:31
ikoniawe go through weeks of definingin this pointless recruitemnt proces that cannot be broke, oooh...unless kubuntu wants to18:32
ikoniatopyli: my fault, sorry - I'll shut up, but I will raise and progress this18:32
topylihave we established what a core op is? i think we have. can we have another topic?18:32
IdleOnehave we established what a core channel is?18:33
Seeker`topyli: We have estabilished that a core op in an op in all core channels. Thats about it18:33
SPooNhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9-TRVbhkE18:33
Seeker`IdleOne: yes18:33
MootBotLINK received:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU9-TRVbhkE18:33
topyliSeeker`: ok18:33
PiciSeeker`: No.  But we can work with the Loco Council if we think an operator should be removed?18:33
Picier, -?18:33
topyliIdleOne: yes18:33
ikoniaSPooN: if thats your participation in a meeting - don't speak again18:34
PiciSPooN: Seriously? You're spamming a link in a meeting of IRC operators?18:34
ikoniaSPooN: this is supposed to be a meeting and you pointing stupid links is crazy and not wewlcome18:34
ikoniawelcome18:34
Seeker`Pici: So how do you define which channels the IRCC is responsible for appointing ops in without the core-channel definition?18:34
SPooNikonia, Pici: definition of spamming.18:34
ikoniaSPooN: stop now, your doing other ubuntu channels, stop it18:35
Seeker`jussi: ^18:35
SPooNyou're?18:35
IdleOneremove him please18:35
IdleOneok.18:35
Seeker`jussi: So how do you define which channels the IRCC is responsible for appointing ops in without the core-channel definition?18:36
PiciI was under the impression that there was a core channel definition.18:36
topylithere is18:36
ikoniathere is18:36
Seeker`-18:21:54- :jussi : Seeker`: I dont see a need for "core ops". In that definition, there are no core chans, and no core ops.18:36
Picihttps://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope18:36
topyliages old, and way out of scope of this meeting18:36
IdleOneWhich channels are core-channels?18:36
Pici[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope18:36
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope18:36
Seeker`Pici: I'm asing jussi about the propsal he sent to the list18:36
ScottKJust because IRCC has authority does not necessarily mean they are the sole authority.  That's OK.18:36
Seeker`but he seems to have gone quiet18:37
jussiSorry, had to zip off to the WC.18:37
ikoniaScottK: I don't disagree, but if you can bypass the processes that are carved in blood because you want to, it makes a mockery of it, however that's not for this meeting, I'll raise it with the council seperatly18:37
ScottKikonia: It's with the Kubuntu Council's permission that the IRCC has any authority in Kubuntu channels.18:38
ikoniaScottK: fully understood, I'll raise it and keep you in the loop18:39
topyliScottK: i don't think breaking up our namespace is on the agenda right now18:39
ikoniaI must leave, apologies18:39
ScottKtopyli: It is if IRCC insists that in core channels it owns the only process for approving channel ops.18:39
jussiSeeker`: please differentiate that proposal from something coming from the IRCC - That one is my ideas. Now, about the IRCC's appointing of ops, Im not exactly sure right now - this is afterall a proposal. I have chatted about it with several people, but I havent yet cleared that exactly in my mind.18:40
Seeker`I would like to make a proposal for a change to the definition of a core-op. Please read http://pastebin.com/mM4Rqvp718:41
PiciSeeker`: That proposal hasn't been agreed on or voted on by the IRCC.18:42
Seeker`Or, rather, an elaboration of the purpose of a core op.18:42
Seeker`WHich seems to be, as yet, undefined.18:42
jussiSeeker`: to that I strongly disagree. Which seems to be the issue here.18:42
Seeker`jussi: which part do you strongly disagree with? Because the people won't be intimately familiar with the operation of all channels? At present, we can have users sitting there spamming porn and swearing in a channel, and there is nothing we can do about it because there aren't the right ops active. That doesn't come down to channel-specific discresion, it is clearly wrong.18:43
Seeker`If core-ops start abusing the system, people will complain. At which point, the IRCC can reassess their suitability to be an op. If noone abuses it, it isn't a problem.18:44
jussiSeeker`: then we need to recruit more ops for the channels, not dump ops on a few people across a lot of channels.18:44
tsimpsonremember, in the case of core-ops. one would have to already be an op in a core channel before becoming a core-op18:45
ScottKjussi: That may be true, but I think Seeker`'s proposal would help now until we have more.18:45
Seeker`jussi: however many you recruit there will still be occasions where noone is active, unless literally everyone has +o.18:45
tsimpsonthere will likely still be occasions where no one is active, even if everyone has +o18:46
PiciI like parts of Seeker's suggestion, but I don't think that anyone would apply to become an operator of another channel if they already have +o there.18:46
tsimpsonfor various reasons18:46
jussiSeeker`: in which case we have the ircc and freenode staff18:46
Seeker`jussi: is the ircc always about? Why do we need to call staff when we have a channel full of ops? Are staff more trusted to understand the operation of channels than ops are?18:47
topyliyou just said all the ops were inactive at this point18:47
Seeker`topyli: all of the ops that have +o in that channel18:48
tsimpsonI think it was made clear that in "emergency cases" one would not need to be familiar with the inner-social-workings of a channel18:48
topyliSeeker`: then the ircc and staff are the next stop18:48
PiciI have a question.18:48
topyli(lacking core ops)18:48
Seeker`We shouldn't be relying on staff to police the channels, especially when there are people active that the IRCC has judged to be suitible ops18:48
Seeker`It isn't staff's job to op our channels for us18:49
topyliuh, agreed. they handle the whole network18:49
topyli(which our channels happen to be on)18:49
tsimpsonso we should remove staff access from our channels, as it's not their job to act in there?18:50
Seeker`topyli: As i understand it, they aren't responsible for the running of individual channels. They are there to stop network trolls18:50
jussiSeeker`: thats right. But they are there on the access list in case of emergencies - as I beleive they suggest on their website18:50
tsimpsonpart of the job for staff is acting in emergencies when no channel ops are available, and they have access18:50
topyliSeeker`: exactly. now how does this discussion advance our core ops issue?18:50
IdleOnetsimpson: we should give the current ops access in the core-channels in case there is a need.18:51
* Pici sighs18:51
Seeker`topyli: Because the exact job of a core-op, or how they are selected, is undefined, and it needs to be defined.18:51
tsimpsonIdleOne: but when if no ops are available then?18:51
IdleOneinstead of hoping that there is a staff member18:51
Seeker`tsimpson: Then, in that case you call staff18:51
topyliSeeker`: now you're talking18:51
LjLPici: don't ask to ask, just ask ;(18:51
IdleOnetsimpson: staff goes idle at time also, then what?18:51
Seeker`tsimpson: why bother having ops at all? Just call staff?18:51
PiciCan we please try to actually make some progress this meeting?18:52
tsimpsonIdleOne: exactly, we're not going to "fix" the issue of there sometimes being no one available to act18:52
PiciLjL: I gave up on that question.18:52
tsimpsoneven if we have everyone on the access list18:52
IdleOnethe point here is that there is a large pool of ops and it is under utilized.18:52
topylii'm going for a smoke18:52
* LjL huggles Pici18:52
Seeker`Ok, so does the IRCC not trust the ops they have chosen? Are they not convinced of their ability to make reliable judgements?18:53
IdleOneI sit idle in most of the core-channels anyway and willing to sit in more channels if needed but my being there and not being able to act in an emergency is a waste of tools18:53
Seeker`Anyone on the IRCC care to answer?18:54
Seeker`If you trust us, give us ops in all core channels, if not, why do we have +o in any core channels?18:54
PiciI personally agree. But I think I'm a minority here.18:54
Seeker`tsimpson: jussi: topyli?18:55
PiciEither we come up with a decision here or we're back where we started.18:55
topyliSeeker`: that question is moot. the council chooses ops they trust18:55
Seeker`topyli: so why not trust them to have +o in all core channels?18:55
IdleOneSo we should be trusted to use our judgment in an emergency18:55
topyliSeeker`: is that a suggestion?18:55
topylibecasue i'd like one18:56
Seeker`topyli: you saw my proposal?18:56
PiciI'll suggest it.18:56
topyliok let's set a topic and discuss18:56
IdleOnePici: please suggest it clearly so we have it on the record.18:56
IdleOnejust so there is no confusion18:56
topyliso far i have seen one, all-encompassing, topic, later learned that this is an ircc meeting (?), and understood very little of the rest18:57
PiciDuring their probationary period operators should only have access in one channel. When that period ends, and the IRCC are in agreement, the operator receives access in all the core channels.18:57
IdleOne+118:57
Seeker`+118:57
jussiI strongly disagree with this proposal18:57
IdleOnea probabtion of 3 months should be long enough to decide18:57
topyli-118:57
Seeker`jussi: in one line, on what grounds?18:57
Seeker`same to topyli18:58
PiciI'd like to hear suggestions for improvement if you disagree.18:58
tsimpsonif we are considering it, then how about we break it up a little? ie: Ubuntu ops, Kubuntu ops, etc18:59
tsimpson(just another suggestion)18:59
topyliwe'll have a better chance of recruiting any ops at all if we pick people who know a channel well and appoint them there18:59
jussiSeeker`: channels are different. different things are "emergencies". Alternate proposal "if" we have core-ops, then the current format "core ops apply, ircc approves"18:59
LjLclearly there is an asymmetry between hiring and firing ops. Hiring is easy, removing is many layers of hassle and emotional tumult. Unless we are suggesting the IRCC is omniscient, there are obviously bad ops. Not letting everyone have ops in all channels minimises this18:59
jussiLjL: this too.18:59
Seeker`LjL: that is the purpose of the probation period. If somene isn't suitable for +o in all channels, they shouldn't have it in any.19:00
IdleOneif they are "bad ops" remove the status.19:00
PiciThen break -offtopic operators into another group.19:00
ScottKIt does seem a bit odd that -offtopic is in the definition of core.19:00
PiciThose are the only channels where I feel that the operator/user interaction is different.19:00
topyliPici: that could have merit19:00
jussiPici: and #kubuntu-* ? and the devel chans?19:00
Seeker`topyli: If someone is capable of opping one core channel, they should be capable of doing it in all of them19:00
topyliSeeker`: i disagree19:01
tsimpsonScottK: all that means is that the IRCC manages it, rather than it being another "team" of people19:01
Seeker`jussi: and what will determine whether someone becomes a core-op or not?19:01
Picijussi: What about them?19:01
tsimpsonjussi: I would bundle -devel type channel in generally19:02
topylithere are at least three distinctive types of channels. devel, support, ot19:02
Picijussi: Do you really think that we handle things differently in #u, compared to #k or #u-devel ?19:02
Seeker`topyli: what would make someone suitable for opping one channel and not another?19:02
tsimpsonI suspect most developers would rather want to develop than worry about IRC management19:02
tsimpsonPici: #u is different from #k, yes19:03
Picitsimpson: Can you explain why?19:03
tsimpsonPici: for instance, the rules absolutely must be applied in #u, as it is so busy any disruption is felt. that's not the case in #k19:04
IdleOneSo it's ok time to time for someone to swear in #k?19:04
tsimpsonno19:04
tsimpsonbut a line or two of offtopic chatter is not as disruptive in #k as it is in #u19:05
IdleOneok but +o in an emergency does not include a little offtopic chatter19:05
Seeker`so there are people with +o in some channels they aren't capable of determining whether something is disrupting the channel or not?19:05
Seeker`If so, are they really capable ops?19:06
IdleOneI consider an emergency something like, racism, excessive swearing, links to porn....19:06
IdleOneeven when a channel appears to be idle for a long period19:07
IdleOnethat sort of stuff is unacceptable19:07
Seeker`It seems that most of the IRCC has strongly disagreed, then ran away19:07
topylian emergency force would be good, and core ops would be good for that. i think the question is now, should everybody be core then?19:08
topyliit does lead to having lots of ops who are never there. is this bad? i don't know19:09
Seeker`I get the feeling that the IRCC doesn't actually trust the ops they have, or their own ability to appoint ops that they trust in the future. Not giving people +o in channels because staff exist isn't a good reason for not giving them +o; It is making decisions about running the namespace because there is some sort of backup in the form of an external entitiy, and not relying on people who have volunteered and wish to help ubuntu. Don't give peop19:09
IdleOneI don't think so. it leads to having more ops who can respond if needed19:09
topyliwe would also have lots of idlers with +o who don't know the culture. is this bad? perhaps19:09
topyliSeeker`: the council currently nominates people for -ot ops who they trust to be able to work -ot19:10
Seeker`topyli: a capable op is able to look at a situation and the channel and determine an appropriate action. If someone isn't capable of reading a situation sufficiently well that they can't do it in more than one channel then they are good ops19:11
topylibad example, as the channel is possibly one of trickiest :)19:11
Seeker`It should be clear to ops if a topic is causing discomfort to the users of the channel19:11
LjLin your dreamworld19:11
topylii would like it to be clear too. however, i'm afraid it is not19:12
Seeker`I'm not suggesting that peopel be given core-ops status so they can just run around with a banhammer. If something gets to the point wher epeople go searching for ops, then the situation needs to be at least looked at.19:12
Seeker`If the situation is borderline, people already familiar with the ubuntu namespace opping would be better placed to make a decision than staff19:13
topylii still think emergencies might be the lowest common denominator which we could talk about. those are actually identifiable19:13
jussiIve spoken to a staffer and : when staff already idle in most of the big channels, poking them about a troll/spammer when no OPs are around is perfectly acceptable and done all the time19:14
IdleOneSo you are completely against adding another layer of security?19:14
IdleOneexcept in the case of applying for core-op status19:14
Seeker`jussi: the fact that staff exist is not a good reason for not giving more people +o.19:14
Seeker`jussi: As staff exist, do you even need more than 1 op? Or maybe just the IRCC?19:15
jussiSeeker`: and I totally agree with giving more people +o, but with the process of certain channels, not just lumping it on everyone19:15
topyliagreed. however, i don't think we should define core ops as the sum of core channel operators19:15
Seeker`jussi: if people don't want to +o in a channel, they don't have to19:16
Seeker`jussi: but at least that way, all operators will have the option to.19:16
topyliSeeker`: wait, is that all operators or all core channel operators?19:16
Seeker`jussi: your arguments at the moment stink of "We don't trust the ops"19:16
Seeker`topyli: all core-channel operators19:16
topyliright19:17
Seeker`core channel operators should have a better idea of where exactly the line is, even on channels that they raen't usually active on, meaning that they can take more appropriate action to that channel than staff can, which is more like using a canon to kill a spider. core channel ops are probably more likely to take the time to catalyse with a potential problem user than staff will.19:18
topyliSeeker`: so you basically share Pici's proposal (or Pici reprhased yours, i don't know). core channel ops are core ops, and they have +o on all core channels (after probation). correct?19:19
Seeker`topyli: yes.19:19
jussiSeeker`: its similar to the upload rights. if a person applies for per package upload, should we just give him access to all of universe and main? no! if a person wants access to main, they need to apply. same goes here. its not that we dont trust the ops, just that the ops need to apply and be approved, not just lumped across the whole load of channels.19:19
IdleOneWhy do they need to apply?19:20
Seeker`The arguments against this proposal I've seen are 1) Staff exist and 2) Not everyone understands all of the channels. Based on argument 2, staff should not be given access to all core channels, because they don't understand the ins-and-outs of each channel.19:20
IdleOneand it isn't a whole load of channels. it's 8-9 channels19:20
tsimpsonthere is a difference between access and emergency-access19:20
IdleOne14 channels sorry19:21
tsimpsonchannels are there own little community19:21
Seeker`Either "staff exist" is a valid argument, which means that concerns about people not understanding channels is an invalid argument, or the opposite. Pick one.19:21
tsimpsonno, no19:22
tsimpsonthere is a difference between access and emergency-access19:22
topylii agree with jussi that it should not be automatic. people should apply for core op status so 1) they show interest and commitment, and 2) to make the ircc aware and force them to review the applicant19:22
Seeker`My assertion is that core-channel ops will have a better understanding of the channels and will therefore be able to make better decisions than staff in more borderline cases19:22
topylithat doesn't mean it has to be hard to get core op rights19:23
Seeker`topyli: there shouldn't be two standards for ops.19:23
Seeker`topyli: you shouldn't have "ok ops" and "good ops", you should only have "good ops"19:23
jussiHow would you then define who has "emergency access" and who are the regular chanops?19:23
topylithere should be a process, for the reasons i named there19:23
Seeker`Or you will have two standards enforced on all of the channels19:23
tsimpsonchannel ops come from that channel, that community. they are active there and people see and know them19:23
Seeker`jussi: a wiki page?19:23
topylino. access is access19:23
PiciThen we need to come up with a real process.19:23
PiciSaying that 'people can apply' isn't a process.19:24
Seeker`topyli: you've had 6 months to come up with a process and failed.19:24
topylicreating an LP team and applying for membership is process enough19:24
Seeker`jussi: giving all core channel ops +o on all core channels and having a wiki page is easier than maintaining different access lists on each channel.19:24
topyliSeeker`: it has not been very urgent apparently19:25
Seeker`topyli: so it never gets done until it is urgent?19:25
tsimpsonSeeker`: we work in urgent things before non-urgent things19:25
topyliSeeker`: well someone has to think it's necessary19:25
topyli(now)19:25
Seeker`topyli: If it isn't necessary, why defined the term int he first place19:25
Seeker`"Lets think up a term and define it, just in case someone thinks we might need it at some point in the future"?19:26
tsimpsonSeeker`: as you said, that's not what happened19:26
Seeker`If a job needs to be done, get on with it, if it doesn't then stop giving yourselves more work to do.19:26
topyliback then the idea was to create a midlevel team just like the one you seem to want19:26
Seeker`topyli: I don't want a mid-level team. I want all core-channel ops to have the same level of access.19:27
topyliok so you have a different idea. you want the original modified19:27
Seeker`Same level of technical access that is. Social issues are different, and there should be a social solution to them.19:27
topyliagain, access is access19:27
Seeker`technically, yes. But we have all sorts of social constructs round access. These are currently too complicated or not implemented. I am pushing for a simplified set of social rules around access, while providing better coverage in channels with the existing pool of ops19:29
topyliSeeker`: i have to go. could you add the issue (something like pici formulated there ^ or my version, or your own version) and add it to next meeting's agenda?19:29
jussiI need to go, my wife is just home and I have other hings to attend to19:29
topyliand please make it fathomable :)19:30
Seeker`I suggested it over an hour ago, and we havent maanged to get anywhere19:30
Seeker`its just jussi saying "I DISAGREE BECAUSE I'M RIGHT" and then disappearing for 10 mins19:30
tsimpsonSeeker`: I don't think that's appropriate19:30
Seeker`and "we trust all of the ops, but not enough to give them +o on all core channels and not abuse it"19:30
topyliwe have not. i think we have some sort of proposal that might be discussable. that's huge progress over what we had an hour ago19:30
Seeker`and "we need more processes"19:30
topyliSeeker`: would you do it then?19:31
Seeker`topyli: I made the same proposal at the UDS meeting two weeks ago.19:31
topylifrankly, i haven't seen a proposal, i have seen rants. the one from 15 minutes ago is better. let's continue from there19:31
Seeker`There wasn;t any progress then19:31
Seeker`and there wasn't any tonight19:31
Seeker`-18:41:55- :       Seeker` : I would like to make a proposal for a change to the definition of a core-op. Please read http://pastebin.com/mM4Rqvp719:32
Seeker`50 minutes ago.19:32
tsimpsonthere is no process going ahead right now, we have not decided to implement anything19:32
tsimpsonwe'll consider your proposal19:32
Pici...19:33
PiciI thought we already considered it.19:33
PiciAnd we started a vote, and two people voted no.19:33
Seeker`I don't feel that jussi or topyli will, because they have stated from the time they saw the proposal that they disagree, have just been presenting the same argument over and over again, without listening to other members of the IRCC, or any of the op team that they are meant to represent and support.19:33
PiciThen we went off track.19:33
IdleOnewhat was the decision?19:33
topylii only understood it about 15 minutes ago19:33
PiciI don't know.19:33
tsimpsonPici: i must have missed that part19:34
Seeker`They are more interested in building up complexity and process in a council that is already sluggish and unwieldy.19:34
PiciAnd I asked for suggestions on how to fix it and we never got a concrete answer.19:35
tsimpsonSeeker`: if they disagree, it is their right to do so19:35
Seeker`And taking over 6 months for a descision for an environment that is based entirely around real-time interation is stupid19:36
Seeker`tsimpson: But they aren't listening to reason, or the people they are supposed to represent19:36
tsimpsonin your opinion19:36
Seeker`I've had countless PMs saying "I agree with you" and noone saying "You are wrong", apart from members of the IRCC19:36
ScottKSeeker`: The IRCC needs to represent all of Ubuntu IRC users and not just Ops.19:37
Seeker`ScottK: Right now they are doing a whole lot of support for the users and none for the ops. I don't feel supported by the IRCC at all.19:37
ScottKSeeker`: OK, but I disagree with your statement that the purpose of the IRCC is to support ops.19:38
Seeker`Every attempt by an operator to make prgress on a topic, or get a resolution is met by "Well, we made this decision over 6 months ago, it isn't implemented yet" or "We haven't had time", or various other non-actions19:38
Seeker`ScottK: Ok, "One of the functions"19:38
ScottKSeeker`: That's fine then.19:38
Seeker`It seems that the purpose of the IRCC at the moment is to cause as much hassle and stress for ops as they can, without taking their opinions or needs on board. Everything just has to be done slowly, and with the "appropriate" amount of process.19:39
IdleOneWell, thanks to all for coming and listening. endmetting.19:42
jussi#endmeeting19:42
MootBotMeeting finished at 13:42.19:42
jussi(thanks tsimpson)19:43

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