[02:11] <Amaranth> Can I get rid of Nikon yet?
[02:48] <IdleOne> Amaranth: Nikon is ban evading
[02:49] <IdleOne> Guest82396 is Nikon also
[02:49] <Amaranth> Yeah, this is going to be fun :)
[02:49] <IdleOne> he has a tone of proxies it seems
[02:50] <Amaranth> And the fun begins
[02:50] <IdleOne> might want to explain the rules and ask that he follows them instead of trying to ban them all
[02:50] <Amaranth> Did you see the hostmask for the guest nick?
[02:51] <Amaranth> IdleOne: And he clearly has no problem ignoring rules, he was swearing and ignored repeated attempts to get him to stop using enter as punctuation
[02:52] <IdleOne> ac3_ (dolphin@u.should.blog.in.ur.hostname.then.commit.suicidelive.com) aka CHILDOFOTOPUS aka vxp aka GUEST....
[02:53] <IdleOne> he should of been banned because of that host when he joined.
[02:53] <Amaranth> Yeah, didn't see it when he joined
[02:53] <IdleOne> me either
[07:41] <mahen23> just unban me already
[07:54] <jussi> mahen23: you disappeared the other day. Ill unban you, but please, be careful with our time.
[07:54] <mahen23> our time?
[07:54] <jussi> mahen23: the operators. you asked to be banned, and now you are asking for unban
[07:55] <mahen23> ohhhhh
[07:55] <jussi> [09:55:23] *** Mode #ubuntu-offtopic -b mahen23!*@* by jussi
[07:55] <mahen23> yea its the only way i can take some time away from irc
[07:56] <jussi> mahen23: you are now unbanned, anything else you need?
[07:56] <mahen23> am going am going
[10:15] <jpds> Hmm, lowebb in #u.
[10:15] <ikonia> rude
[10:16] <ikonia> why has lutz directed him to offtopic rather than the correct channel as you did
[10:16] <ikonia> fed up with that, it's not ontopic for ubuntu, so instead of pointing the right place, dump into offtopic
[10:17] <jpds> Yeah, I felt like kicking him but thought I'd let someone else look into it.
[10:17] <ikonia> not into entertaining his rubbish
[10:19] <ikonia> popey: obvious troll here
[10:19] <popey> :)
[10:20] <ikonia> I haven't spoke since he joined the channel, and no-one said anything about paying for anything
[10:20] <popey> jpds did
[10:20] <popey> 10:13:07 < jpds> lowebb: Did you pay for the Ubuntu?
[10:21] <ikonia> oh
[10:21] <jpds> Well, that clearly wasn't directed at him.
[10:21] <ikonia> I missed that
[10:21] <popey> well no, but it's not a helpful retort tbh
[10:22] <ikonia> too slow !
[10:22] <ikonia> and I missed the ?
[10:22] <popey> :)
[13:22] <gnomefreak> can someone please make !info natty as default in #ubuntu-mozillateam please?
[13:29] <gnomefreak> it seems natty wasnt even added to bot. !info bleh natty says that natty is not valid
[13:43] <jussi> gnomefreak: I/tsimpson will get to it sometime soon - Im in the middle of something at work atm, so please keep prodding us till it gets done
[13:43] <gnomefreak> jussi: thanks
[13:44] <jussi> gnomefreak: really though, please keep prodding or file a bug - Im way busy atm
[13:44] <jussi> !bug
[13:45] <gnomefreak> i will file one as soon as i get a minute
[13:49] <tsimpson> gnomefreak: I'll add natty now
[13:50] <tsimpson> this would probably be easier if ubuntu had links to stable/unstable in the archive, a-la debian
[13:53]  * popey shudders at the thought
[13:53] <gnomefreak> tsimpson: thanks. can you also add it to +1 and #ubuntu-mozillateam
[13:54] <Pici> It should have been done in +1 a while ago.
[13:54] <Pici> hrm..
[13:54] <Pici> weird.
[13:55] <gnomefreak> everything is acting weird for me today
[13:56] <tsimpson> @channel #ubuntu+1 plugins.PackageInfo.defaultRelease natty
[13:56] <tsimpson> @channel #ubuntu-mozillateam plugins.PackageInfo.defaultRelease natty
[13:57] <tsimpson> @reload PackageInfo
[13:57] <tsimpson> fix0rd
[13:58] <bazhang> hehe
[13:58] <gnomefreak> im still getting maverick as default in -mozillateam
[13:59] <gnomefreak> 'natty' is not a valid thats using !info bleh natty
[14:00] <tsimpson> gnomefreak: is ubottu or ubot4 in there?
[14:01] <gnomefreak> letme check
[14:01] <gnomefreak> ubot2
[14:02] <gnomefreak> you would have to do this per bot?
[14:03] <tsimpson> ubot2 and ubot4 are on different servers and run by jpds
[14:03] <tsimpson> jpds: *poke*
[14:04] <gnomefreak> oh. feel free to give us ubottu ( i know we cant have it in there)
[14:04] <gnomefreak> be back coffee refill
[14:05] <tsimpson> gnomefreak: if you remove ubot2 I can place ubottu there (temporarily anyway)
[14:05] <tsimpson> and, technically, it should be ubot4
[14:05] <tsimpson> confused anyone? ;)
[14:06] <jpds> gnomefreak: Fixed.
[14:07] <jpds> Well, apt's still churning away.
[14:11] <gnomefreak> jpds: thanks
[14:22] <ikonia> quite a row going on in -server
[14:30] <Tm_T> huh?
[14:31] <ikonia> few guys getting a little heated, not bad, just frustrated, good discussion though
[14:31] <jpds> ikonia: Quite.
[14:32] <Tm_T> summary?
[14:33] <ikonia> just about some of the processes the server team are using to package
[14:34] <Tm_T> ah, roger
[14:34] <Tm_T> thanks (:
[14:47] <jpds> Hmm, captain_ in #u.
[14:50]  * ikonia smells a troll attack
[14:50] <gnomefreak> i really really hate the word nazis (when using it to call someone one)
[14:50] <jpds> gnomefreak: Are you a socialist?
[14:50] <ikonia> who said that ?
[14:50] <gnomefreak> he needs to be careful
[14:51] <tsimpson> gnomefreak: ditto, I have it on highlight
[14:51] <Tm_T> same
[14:51] <gnomefreak> ikonia: captain did
[14:51] <ikonia> I missed that
[14:51] <gnomefreak> me too at first
[14:51]  * gnomefreak doesnt have words on highlite its too much work
[14:52] <ikonia> Hubologist: is a troll he was saying he loves #ubuntu in #debian, and debian in #ubuntu
[14:52] <gnomefreak> never been called a socialist
[14:53] <gnomefreak> IMHO captain should be removed from #u since he has been warned alot
[14:54] <ikonia> has he been warned a lot ?
[14:54] <ikonia> we are all watching, give him a chance,
[14:54] <gnomefreak> ok maybe warn was a bad word
[14:54] <ikonia> he's not spoke again yet
[14:54] <ikonia> I know what you mean
[14:55] <gnomefreak> how many chances are you planning on? i havent seen him give or ask for support in #u
[14:55] <jpds> 1.
[14:55] <ikonia> harsh using nazi in reference to gemrman
[14:55] <ikonia> germans
[14:55] <ikonia> gnomefreak: he's not spoken since he's been told it's a support channel
[14:55] <ikonia> he knows now - so lets see what he does
[14:56] <gnomefreak> i would have removed him at that point but i wasnt watching. i wont interject at this point since others are watching/talking to him
[14:56] <ikonia> gnomefreak: I would have done sooner had I seen the other comments
[14:57] <gnomefreak> we used to ban people for using that word
[14:58] <gnomefreak> a long time ago like before IRCC
[14:58] <ikonia> I would have done had I seen him use it
[15:20] <ikonia> lockersnatch: hello
[15:22] <ikonia> lockersnatch: could you please respond as you have been forwarded from the channel #ubuntu to this channel
[15:28] <lockersnatch> yea whats up
[15:29] <lockersnatch> ...annnd why have i been banned from ubuntu?
[15:29] <ikonia> lockersnatch: you've been forwarded to this channel and not ubuntu because yesterday you where banned, and you've tried to (and did) get around the ban
[15:29] <lockersnatch> how and why did i get banned?
[15:29] <ikonia> I've put a more agressive ban in place and forwarded you here to discuss it
[15:29] <lockersnatch> brb, phone
[15:29] <lockersnatch> oh, nvm someone else got it
[15:29] <ikonia> lockersnatch: you know why - you sent me a pm calling me a tool
[15:29] <lockersnatch> so yea, why was i banned?
[15:29] <ikonia> due to your offtopic (backtrack as I recall) questioning
[15:30] <ikonia> and when I asked you to stop, you started calling me names
[15:30] <lockersnatch> ohhh yea, the reason i didnt leave to go to BT A: I didnt have a registered nick and you cant speak in that chan without one, and B: someone in Ubuntu was trying to answer my question and i didnt want to leave them talking to thin air
[15:31] <ikonia> lockersnatch: I asked and then told you to stop discussing it
[15:31] <ikonia> you didn't
[15:31] <ikonia> you got banned and started name calling
[15:31] <lockersnatch> right, because that guy was trying to answer the question
[15:31] <ikonia> it doesn't matter
[15:32] <lockersnatch> i just called you a tool cause that guy was trying to answer my question and you kept telling me to leave
[15:32] <ikonia> I asked you 2 times, and then told you a 3rd, I directed you to the correct channel, and asked the other user to stop
[15:33] <ikonia> lockersnatch: we have channel rules and guidelines, if you want to join #ubuntu - you need to agree to follow them
[15:33] <lockersnatch> plus, i didnt realize you were an op, and thought you were just some random person trying to be a stick in the mud
[15:33] <ikonia> you also need to be able to talk to other users without being rude
[15:33] <ikonia> lockersnatch: it doesn't matter if an op or a community member asks you to follow the channels topic policy - you do it
[15:33] <lockersnatch> i thought it was on topic because i was asking about how to get the ubuntu bootloader in the right position
[15:33] <ikonia> lockersnatch: yes, but you where told it was offtopic
[15:34] <ikonia> and caried out
[15:34] <ikonia> multiple times
[15:34] <lockersnatch> and as i said, backtrack doesnt allow unregistered nicks to speak in that chan
[15:34] <ikonia> lockersnatch: that doesn't mean ubuntu picks up the slack
[15:34] <lockersnatch> so...i went and registered
[15:34] <ikonia> lockersnatch: you have a choice of registering a nick and using the correct channel, or not getting backtrack support
[15:34] <lockersnatch> look, if you want to keep me banned, do it, i offer as much support to people as i can while im in that chan, but if its not welcome, fine
[15:34] <lockersnatch> i apologize for calling you a tool
[15:35] <lockersnatch> but there is really nothing else i can do about it at this point
[15:35] <lockersnatch> i registered a nick so that i could speak in that chan so that should remedy that particular situation
[15:35] <ikonia> lockersnatch: if I remove the ban will you keep to ubuntu (not backtrack) support discussion ?
[15:36] <ikonia> so if I remove the ban - you'll keep to pure ubuntu support only ?
[15:36] <lockersnatch> absolutely
[15:36] <ikonia> and if someone nudges you to keep on topic of corect you on how to behave in the channel, you'll do it ??
[15:37] <lockersnatch> lol, yes ill do it, but in my defense, you didnt explain how it was off topic...i thought it was on topic because as i said i was asking about the bootloader, but apparently i was wrong
[15:38] <ikonia> lockersnatch: don't lie, I made it crystal clear 2 times ubuntu was for ubuntu support only and the correct channel was backtrack-linux
[15:38] <lockersnatch> so, yes, i will try to stick to topic, but on a side note, if the rules are this strict, i might suggest explaining why something is not off topic so that ppl dont think they are getting railroaded
[15:38] <lockersnatch> riight, but i was asking about the ubuntu bootloader
[15:38] <ikonia> I did explain
[15:38] <ikonia> lockersnatch: no you where not
[15:38] <ikonia> you where asking about the boot loader installed by backtrack
[15:39] <lockersnatch> and how to get grub2 back in place
[15:39] <lockersnatch> but i never got that far
[15:39] <ikonia> because you where talking about backtrack's boot loader
[15:39] <lockersnatch> *sigh*
[15:39] <ikonia> if your happy with what I've said, I'll remove the ban,
[15:39] <lockersnatch> im ecstatic
[15:40] <ikonia> I can do without the sarcasm
[15:40] <lockersnatch> ok, im happy
[15:40] <lockersnatch> or satisfied
[15:40] <ikonia> the ban has been removed, you can leave this channel and re-join #ubuntu now
[15:40] <lockersnatch> or accepting
[15:55] <IdleOne> Not sure I understand why the IRCC is calling for more nominees, how many nominees did the IRCC get?
[15:57] <popey> not enough
[15:58] <IdleOne> really
[15:58] <IdleOne> et tu
[15:58] <IdleOne> that answer, sounds like the IRCC doesn't like the nominees it got.
[15:59] <IdleOne> not enough really is not an answer. Why can't I get a number
[16:00] <popey> which answer?
[16:00] <popey> oh, my "not enough" answer
[16:00] <IdleOne> yes
[16:00] <popey> well, it's probably not that hard to figure out, given we know how big the IRCC currently is
[16:01] <Tm_T> not enough to make it poll
[16:01] <popey> so anything less than that number could reasonably be considered "not enough" IMO
[16:01] <IdleOne> based on the size of the current council I am supposed to guess on how many people have been nominated or nominated themself for the open positions?
[16:01] <IdleOne> seriously?
[16:02] <popey> It's an option :)
[16:02] <IdleOne> fine, if you don't want to answer...
[16:02] <popey> tbh the reason I haven't given a straight answer is because I don't know how public the info is or should be
[16:02] <popey> the mail was between the IRCC and the CC
[16:02] <popey> if the IRCC wish to make that public, then there is your answer
[16:03] <IdleOne> the mail I got says the nomination period has been extended because of "not enough" nominees.
[16:03] <popey> reply to that mail asking "how many nominees did the IRCC get"?
[16:04] <IdleOne> I don't see how the number of applicants is a secret
[16:04]  * popey shrugs
[16:04] <IdleOne> whatever.
[16:04] <popey> o_O
[16:05] <Tm_T> I really don't see how exact number is relevant
[16:05] <gord> this teacup has too many storms in it, i'm getting a new one
[16:06] <Tm_T> but in general, you need three for every open position to make it real competition
[16:07] <Tm_T> IMO
[16:08] <knome> agreed
[16:08] <Tm_T> no matter how good nominees you got
[16:08] <gord> maybe the fact that we had to ask for more is an indication of.. something, not sure just asking again will fix whatever that thing is
[16:09] <IdleOne> Tm_T: if there are 2 spots open and two people apply and they are both "good" then why is there a need for more applicants ?
[16:09] <popey> one perspective is that asking for more is indicative that not enough people heard about it.
[16:09] <IdleOne> for example ^^
[16:09] <Tm_T> IdleOne: because it's meant to be voted by us
[16:10] <Tm_T> IdleOne: and lack of applicants usually means people aren't encouraged enough
[16:11] <ikonia> or they have confidence in the guys doing the job now the issues have been raised
[16:11] <popey> or the pool of possible people is too small
[16:11] <popey> or people just dont want to
[16:11] <ikonia> I think the pool is quite good
[16:11] <popey> how many in the pool?
[16:12] <popey> (I honestly dont know)
[16:12] <ikonia> pretty much the whole operator community at least
[16:12] <ikonia> they are all aware of it
[16:12] <popey> I am not asking how many are good/bad, just raw numbers
[16:12] <ikonia> well if you look at the unique operators in core channels there are at least 30 - 5 current = 25
[16:12] <ikonia> (roughly)
[16:12] <ikonia> (just did ubuntu/ubuntu-server/kubuntu as a guide)
[16:12] <popey> interesting
[16:12] <popey> thanks
[16:13] <popey> and we're sure every single one of them knows about this recruitment drive?
[16:13] <ikonia> as operators they should be subscribed to the list
[16:13] <popey> we're not targetting the wrong people with announcements?
[16:13] <IdleOne> they should all be on the ML so yeah
[16:13] <ikonia> that is one of the requirements
[16:13] <popey> ok
[16:13] <tsimpson> nominations are not limited to current operators
[16:13] <tsimpson> anyone can apply
[16:13] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, but I was using that as a exmaple pool
[16:13] <ikonia> "at least the current operator team"
[16:13] <tsimpson> ok
[16:14] <tsimpson> IdleOne: "that answer, sounds like the IRCC doesn't like the nominees it got." <- which is why we specified that the IRCC and the CC are not satisfied with the numer
[16:14] <tsimpson> *number
[16:15] <ikonia> I think being a little more open would help
[16:15] <ikonia> we only got $X number, we'd like $X+1
[16:15] <ikonia> it would also help if we knew if the existing members are planning to re-run
[16:15] <tsimpson> ikonia: the reason we didn't give out the number is because the council has never given out that information before
[16:15] <ikonia> eg: people may not want to replace them, but would apply if they knew there was a shortfall
[16:16] <ikonia> tsimpson: you don't have to, just giving you a view
[16:16] <IdleOne> tsimpson: I used IRCC as an umbrella term but I still don't see why there is a need for more applicants assuming the current applicants are qualified. Anyway I didn't want to start a huge debate/war over this I was just curious to know how many applicants there is at this point.
[16:16] <ikonia> eg: if I wanted to give the 2 guys a chance to fix things, why would I run, if I knew there was a shortfall as say pici didn't want to re-run, then I'd apply
[16:16] <ikonia> (in a hypothetical situation)
[16:16] <ikonia> I'm not saying pici doesn't want to, nor that I want to apply
[16:17] <tsimpson> if you want to apply you should, regardless of who has applied already
[16:17] <ikonia> that's not how I'd view it
[16:17] <ikonia> why would I want to run against someone I'd want to support
[16:18] <tsimpson> well we have 2 open spots, maybe you and that person would both be approved ;)
[16:18] <charlie-tca> agreed. I would not nominate myself if I feel that the incumbent is doing a good job. That simply limits their chances.
[16:18] <ikonia> tsimpson: what about if I wanted to support both guys as I thought they where doing a good job
[16:18] <ikonia> I don't understand why there are number needs
[16:18] <ikonia> if there are 2 job, and only one person applys, and you don't like him for that role, leave the roles open and re-advertise
[16:19] <ikonia> don't give it to someone by default, but have the balls to say "we don't want you to continue even though there is no replacment"
[16:19] <ikonia> pick the right people for the job, not making up the numbers
[16:19] <IdleOne> Also "we didn't give out the number is because the council has never given out that information before" doesn't mean you can't start giving it out now. Perhaps this particular issue has never happened before because in the past there was always a larger number of applicants.
[16:20] <tsimpson> IdleOne: yes, but I'm not going to make a unilateral call on that
[16:20] <ikonia> tsimpson: maybe take it up with the others as the number of people and if the guys are intending to re-run maybe a factor for people
[16:21] <tsimpson> ikonia: those that have already applied are still counted, we just want to make sure everyone gets a chance to apply
[16:21] <ikonia> tsimpson: everyone has had a chance to apply - you made the mail a while ago
[16:21] <ikonia> you've stated you've not got enough numbers, I don't see why numbers are relevant, what's relevant is out of the people who already exist and applied, do you want any of them to do the job, yes or no
[16:21] <ikonia> (I don't expect you to say yes or no)
[16:21] <IdleOne> everyone who wanted to apply had the chance. the call for nominees is over. extending it seems illogical to me and only brings up doubt in my mind as to why it has been extended.
[16:22] <ikonia> if the answer is no, then the council goes to 3 (still a quarum) while it's worked out
[16:22] <tsimpson> ikonia: the issue is not with the applicants, just with the extremely low response
[16:22] <ikonia> tsimpson: why is that an issue ?
[16:22] <ikonia> is this acceptable to discuss in this channel ?
[16:23] <tsimpson> compared to the last election, there has been an extremely low response. no one can be exactly sure why, so we are extending the application period
[16:23] <ikonia> you've not asked why
[16:23] <ikonia> you've just extended the period
[16:23] <ikonia> and you've made no details of the current situation available
[16:23] <tsimpson> in that email
[16:23] <Tm_T> I see no problem in this
[16:23] <ikonia> that doesn't say anything beyond low number and extended
[16:24] <ikonia> what is the number, what's low, why do you need more numbers, surly is the people that count, how many do you want, who's applied, are the existing guys re-running
[16:24] <ikonia> all factors to my personal process
[16:24] <Tm_T> ikonia: there need to be enough candidates so we can really vote
[16:25] <ikonia> why ?
[16:25] <ikonia> if there are 2 guys, and two roles, you vote if you want them to have the job, if its 3 - 2 no, the council goes to 3
[16:25] <ikonia> if there is 1 guy and 2 jobs, one position is vacant and you decide if you want him to do the job
[16:25] <tsimpson> ikonia: no, the council must have 5 members
[16:25] <ikonia> tsimpson: no it doesn't
[16:25] <ikonia> it ran without for long enough
[16:26] <tsimpson> * The Council will consist of five (5) members. Membership should be public.
[16:26] <ikonia> and I'm not saying it goes to 3 until the end of time, it goes to 3 until you find someone to replace
[16:26] <tsimpson> from the charter
[16:26] <ikonia> tsimpson: it's written on a wiki - that doesn't make it an unbrekable rule
[16:26] <ikonia> this is the kind of non-commonsense stuff that is annoying people
[16:26] <ikonia> I will now make a public call for you to release the information on the current numbers, if the exiting members are going to re-riun
[16:26] <Pici> The CC is not happy with the number of nominations.
[16:27] <ikonia> Pici: yes, so the question is to them as much as the IRCC
[16:28] <tsimpson> ikonia: we do not get the final say on if the number is acceptable, the CC do
[16:28] <ikonia> no-wonder people are shy of applying when no-one knows what's going on, why and the answers are like talking to the Riddler from batman
[16:28] <ikonia> tsimpson: yes, the question is to the CC as much as the IRCC
[16:28] <Tm_T> ikonia: I recommend to do the public calls in ML
[16:28] <ikonia> Tm_T: I will
[16:28] <Tm_T> thanks
[16:28] <ikonia> popey: are you still active ?
[16:29] <popey> i just forwarded IdleOnes question mail to the cc
[16:29] <ikonia> popey: thank you,
[16:29] <IdleOne> thank you
[16:29] <popey> np
[16:29] <ikonia> popey: I'd like to discuss this with the CC and the IRCC as this is bonkers
[16:29] <popey> I disagree.
[16:29] <ikonia> it shouldn't be this hard to involve the community
[16:31] <charlie-tca> It isn't really that hard to understand. If the CC requires more than one candidate per position before a vote can be called for, that is a requirement to ask for more nominations
[16:31] <popey> well, it's not a requirement as such
[16:32] <IdleOne> so what happens if there are no other nominees?
[16:32] <ikonia> if you get 1 or 100 candidates it shouldn't matter
[16:32] <charlie-tca> If it is not a requirement, then the whole request becomes mute
[16:32] <ikonia> it's a simple matter of vote for that person or not even if there is no-one else
[16:32] <popey> s/mute/moot/
[16:32] <ikonia> if there is no-one else and you don't like the person for the role, the position stays open
[16:33] <popey> I think you're overthinking it.
[16:33] <popey> it's really very simple
[16:33] <popey> the ircc mailed the cc with a list of nominees
[16:33] <ikonia> I agree
[16:33] <popey> the cc said "there's not enough, get some more"
[16:33] <ikonia> why do you need more numbers ?
[16:33] <popey> the ircc puts out a call
[16:33] <ikonia> I don't see why the number is iimportant
[16:33] <IdleOne> but why?
[16:33] <ikonia> just "can this person do the job, do we want them to do the job"
[16:33] <IdleOne> it's the why that we want to know about
[16:33] <popey> this is not the first time we have done this
[16:33] <popey> (ask for more nominees)
[16:34] <ikonia> doesn't mean its the right thing to do
[16:34] <popey> nor wrong
[16:34] <ikonia> very true
[16:34] <ikonia> I personally do not see why the number of people is important over the acutal person applying, yes/no do we want this person, even if there is no-one else
[16:34] <ikonia> that's how it should be looked at
[16:35] <popey> I disagree
[16:35] <ikonia> if there are 10 people, then great
[16:35] <ikonia> it widens the options and discussions
[16:35] <popey> here's your ballot paper, there's one name on it
[16:35] <ikonia> popey: if no-one applies in the extended period, what happens ?
[16:35] <ikonia> popey: don't vote
[16:35] <popey> which indicates a further problem
[16:35] <charlie-tca> write-in vote
[16:35] <ikonia> popey: I know where you are going, and I see the issue your suggesting
[16:36] <popey> I'm not going anywhere
[16:36] <popey> I'm merely responding to your questions the best I can from my personal perspective
[16:37] <ikonia> popey: I meant, I unerstand the problem your suggesting
[16:37] <popey> ok
[16:37] <ikonia> or at least appricate it
[18:13] <gnomefreak> jpds: can you please make natty the default in #u-mozillateam
[18:38] <jpds> 18:37:50 < jpds> !ot | Magnum
[18:38] <jpds> 18:38:15 [Freenode] [ ~Magnum!~Magnum@ip-110-195-241-92.dialup.ice.net  ] Perhaps you wish to be quiet ?
[18:39] <jpds> Removed.
[18:43] <jpds> Now he's back as Magnux.
[18:54] <Flannel> not in #u he isn't
[19:28] <Pici> He was back in as Magralthea though.
[19:28] <Pici> Magralthea (~Magralthe@ip-205-222-241-92.dialup.ice.net)
[19:29] <jpds> Pici: Noice.