[18:00] <IdleOne> ircc meeting?
[18:00] <nhandler> Meeting time. jussi, topyli, elky, tsimpson ?
[18:01] <tsimpson> \o
[18:01] <jussi> o/
[18:01] <topyli> o/
[18:02] <jussi> right, who is chairing this thime?
[18:02] <jussi> time even
[18:03] <nhandler> I can I guess
[18:03] <nhandler> #startmeeting
[18:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:03. The chair is nhandler.
[18:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:03] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Add eir to #ubuntu
[18:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Add eir to #ubuntu
[18:03] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:03] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:03] <nhandler> I added a long explanation on the wiki that I would suggest reading if you haven't already: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal#Add%20eir%20to%20%23ubuntu
[18:04] <nhandler> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal#Add%20eir%20to%20%23ubuntu
[18:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal#Add%20eir%20to%20%23ubuntu
[18:05] <nhandler> So any comments on adding eir? This is only for #ubuntu for now, but if we find it beneficial, we could discuss adding it to other core channels in the future
[18:06] <jussi> nhandler: could you tell us in dot point for the benefits of eir? Is it just the auto ban removal and nagging?
[18:06] <topyli> i certainly like the autoexpiring bans
[18:06] <jussi> Also, you mentioned it notices -ops - people may object to that... (speaking from experience...)
[18:07] <nhandler> jussi: The main benefit is that you can set a comment/expiration date for bans/quiets/certain mode changes. This would make it easy to have certain bans automatically get removed (or have eir nag you) after a certain period of time (to avoid banning and forgetting)
[18:07] <jussi> I like that a ot
[18:07] <jussi> lot*
[18:08] <jussi> Im worried about potential issues with notices (people have complained in the past)
[18:08] <nhandler> jussi: It can notice a person/channel of our choice. And personally, I still think that notices about bans are something our OPs should be able to put up with. They can adjust their own bans on a per-ban basis, and this will hopefully help keep us from forgetting and having to do a mass ban clear every few months
[18:08] <nhandler> It might also provde helpful with the FloodBot bans
[18:08] <ikonia> is this as a supliment to ubottu's BT capabilities, or in place of
[18:08] <nhandler> ikonia: Supplement
[18:08] <jussi> ikonia: supplement
[18:08] <jussi> hehe
[18:08] <nhandler> Ubottu would still be used for tracking users over long periods of time
[18:09] <ikonia> so what's the short benifit it does beyond what ubottu does already ?
[18:09] <ikonia> (or I can go and read the link if that's easier)
[18:09] <jussi> ikonia: auto ban removal and better nagging
[18:09] <nhandler> ikonia: I'd read the link, but ubottu just nags after a week. With eir, I could have it nag me after a day, or auto-remove the ban after a month.
[18:10] <ikonia> so would the nagging in ubottu be disabled ?
[18:10] <tsimpson> yes
[18:10] <ikonia> (reading link now)
[18:10] <tsimpson> for #ubuntu anyway
[18:10] <nhandler> We would hopefully also get it so ubottu could parse the ban comments set in eir so we have them in the BT
[18:11] <ikonia> so we would set the ban comments in eir now ?
[18:11] <tsimpson> the bot would parse the comments you give to eir and put it into the BT
[18:11] <ikonia> can it do that now ?
[18:11] <jussi> I think we eventually will have this all in ubottu, but for now, this is best case
[18:12] <ikonia> the only benifit I'm reading is that it can auto remove bans
[18:12] <jussi> ikonia: I think tsimpson will have it working in pretty short order
[18:12] <ikonia> jussi: then I don't think we should be implementing something until it is working
[18:12] <ikonia> the comments in BT are quite important
[18:13] <tsimpson> ikonia: it does nagging better than ubottu does now, and it does auto-removal
[18:13] <ikonia> does it send a better pm ?
[18:13] <jussi> ikonia: it wont be implemented until it does, but we need to take the decision to implement it
[18:13] <ikonia> tsimpson: how does it nag better ?
[18:13] <ikonia> jussi: then I suggest not implimenting it and carring on with ubottu development
[18:13] <tsimpson> ikonia: because ubottu just nags after one week, and that's all it can do
[18:13] <jussi> ikonia: it can nag in different intevals than the standard one week
[18:14] <ikonia> I don't want more nagging (personally)
[18:14] <nhandler> ikonia: You can adjust how long it waits before nagging. Then, once it nags you can decide whether to change the expiration so it nags agin in another few days. It also includes the comment that was set (so you know what the ban was about)
[18:14] <IdleOne> Can the good part of eir be implemented into ubottu ?
[18:14] <IdleOne> parts*
[18:14] <nhandler> IdleOne: There has been a bug open for a few years about that.
[18:14] <jussi> IdleOne: as we said, thats the plan
[18:14] <tsimpson> we need to decide if we want to go ahead with eir before ubottu is modified to work with it
[18:14] <jussi> IdleOne: but for now, making this work is best case
[18:14] <ikonia> I don't see the benifit to adding a bot to work with a bot, when we have a working bot that can be developed
[18:15] <jussi> ikonia: the fix forworking with eir is small, the adding capability is large
[18:15] <nhandler> For one thing, we shouldn't need to or want to re-invent the wheel for every new feature we want
[18:15] <ikonia> unless ubottu is failing at delivering something, I don't see the need to add another bot
[18:15] <nhandler> ikonia: It is failing at delivering this functionality currently
[18:15] <ikonia> nhandler: which functionaltiy ?
[18:15] <ikonia> sorry, I' missing what ubottu is failing to deliver on
[18:16] <topyli> the autoexpiry, the configurable nags, as stated
[18:16] <ikonia> I don't feel ubottu is faiing
[18:16] <tsimpson> it fails at configuring the notification period and it fails at having the ability to remove bans/quiets automatically
[18:16] <ikonia> I'd live to see more work on the floodbot replacemnt that we are being held to randsom with at the moment
[18:16] <nhandler> ikonia: Basically, as can be seen by our long ban lists and our need to do a mass-clear every few months, people are setting and forgetting about their bans. ubottu will nag once after a week or so, but that is it. People often simply ignore this if they aren't quite ready to remove the ban or can't remember what it is.
[18:16] <ikonia> I don't want a bot to auto remove my bans
[18:16] <tsimpson> with ubottu, you get nagged after 1 week, and that's it
[18:17] <tsimpson> it doesn't check if it's a long term ban
[18:17] <tsimpson> it doesn't check if it should nag again
[18:17] <ikonia> nhandler: I don't personally want more nagging,
[18:17] <nhandler> ikonia: You can adjust that on a per-ban basis
[18:17] <ikonia> I don't appreciate the current nagging so a bot that nags more isn't a benifit to me
[18:17] <topyli> ikonia: this doesn't interfere with the floodbot development
[18:17] <ikonia> topyli: great
[18:17] <tsimpson> especially in #ubuntu, it's important our ops remove unneeded bans
[18:17] <jussi> nhandler: perhaps its worth providing an example of eir and what you might give it
[18:18] <nhandler> jussi: Usage examples are on http://freenode.net/eir.shtml
[18:18] <nhandler> That shows the various commands and examples on using them
[18:19] <ikonia> up to you guys of course, but for me this is a waste of effort and adding another layer of complexity for no real benifit (for me personally)
[18:19] <IdleOne> nhandler: does using eir change how I use chanserv.py or auto_bleh?
[18:19] <nhandler> IdleOne: No. Although you might want to use /aq instead of /at in auto_bleh and then use eir to set when the quiet should be removed
[18:20] <nhandler> /aq is a quiet, /at is a quiet auto_bleh removes after a 15 minute period (or whatever the user set)
[18:20] <IdleOne> so basically instead of ubottu messaging me for comment eir will be doing it. I just need to learn the new syntax for eir.
[18:20] <jussi> Is anyone still unclear on what eir does?
[18:20] <jussi> IdleOne: yup
[18:20] <ikonia> the links nhandler has provider are quite solid
[18:21] <ikonia> provided even
[18:21] <jussi> IdleOne: it has a few more options ;)
[18:21] <bazhang> nags more and autoremoves bans
[18:21] <IdleOne> I don't like the idea of auto removal of bans after 24 hours. I would like to see it extended to 7 days.
[18:21] <topyli> bazhang: it can nag less if you like :)
[18:21] <jussi> bazhang: not more, (well can be) but more configurabe
[18:21] <tsimpson> IdleOne: it won't auto remove by default
[18:21] <nhandler> IdleOne: If you read the defaults I suggested, it would simply nag after 24 hours, not autoremove
[18:21] <IdleOne> ok
[18:21] <IdleOne> sounds good to me
[18:21] <tsimpson> IdleOne: and it'll be completely configurable per ban/quiet
[18:21] <bazhang> IdleOne, does it affect chanserv.py?
[18:21] <nhandler> bazhang: No
[18:22] <IdleOne> bazhang: not that I can see right now
[18:22] <bazhang> nhandler, thanks
[18:22] <tsimpson> chanserv.py doesn't do auto-removal anyway, so it won't
[18:22] <IdleOne> tsimpson: yes it does
[18:22] <tsimpson> and eir works even if you /quit
[18:22] <IdleOne> seveas added a timed q and b
[18:23] <IdleOne> tsimpson: there is that, with chanserv we have to be online
[18:23] <nhandler> It is also worth noting (if you haven't already noticed) that eir is used and developed by staff in #freenode and #defocus
[18:23] <tsimpson> well then the same as auto_bleh, just don't use auto-removal parts
[18:23] <IdleOne> ok. I'm ok with testing eir.
[18:23] <nhandler> Do the defaults I noted look sane?
[18:23] <jussi> nhandler: to me they do
[18:24] <jussi> Perhaps its worth a defaults review next meeting
[18:24] <topyli> yes. we'll tweak if needed
[18:24] <IdleOne> yeah.
[18:24] <jussi> ölölölölölölllllllllöööööööööllllllllö
[18:24] <nhandler> jussi: I'd prfer to give it a month
[18:24] <jussi> err oops
[18:24] <nhandler> It will take some time for OPs to get used to it and start really using it
[18:24] <jussi> nhandler: fair enough
[18:25] <IdleOne> ubottu's BT will still be used?
[18:25] <nhandler> [VOTE] Try eir in #ubuntu for a month (default expiration of 24h, notices to -ops, and nag instead of autoremove by default)
[18:25] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Try eir in #ubuntu for a month (default expiration of 24h, notices to -ops, and nag instead of autoremove by default).
[18:25] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[18:25] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[18:25] <nhandler> +1
[18:25] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[18:25] <topyli> +1
[18:25] <jussi> +1
[18:25] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[18:25] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[18:25] <tsimpson> IdleOne: yeah, the only part of ubottu eir will replace is the nagging part, which is poor anyway
[18:25] <tsimpson> +1
[18:25] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[18:25] <ikonia> whoaaa
[18:25] <ikonia> notices to -ops ?
[18:26] <ikonia> I thought we'd been through the notices to -ops stuff as jussi called out ?
[18:26] <IdleOne> does eir send me notices or msg
[18:26] <nhandler> It is really no different than what OPs /should/ already be doing (notifying when they set/remove a ban)
[18:26] <nhandler> IdleOne: I can't remember. I can check in a minute
[18:26] <IdleOne> notices sometimes get lost with xchat.
[18:26] <ikonia> does it send notices to the channel, or pm's as ubottu does
[18:27] <tsimpson> a ban can, and should, be removed by another ops
[18:27] <tsimpson> people don't "own" bans
[18:27] <IdleOne> it is supposed to send to it's own window but doesn't always
[18:27] <ikonia> sorry, I didn't pickup on the notice to -ops stuff earlier, I thought jussi had covered it off
[18:28] <ikonia> (not seen any discussion on this on the mail list, have I missed it) ?
[18:28] <IdleOne> tsimpson: sometimes it is hard to decide if a ban set by another op can/should be removed as comments are not always available
[18:28] <tsimpson> eir will have the comment for the ban
[18:29] <IdleOne> tsimpson: what i mean is that not all ops comment bans
[18:29] <tsimpson> and other comments will still be in the BT
[18:29] <ikonia> sorry, I don't think this should be implemented until eir can sync with BT
[18:29] <ikonia> storing comments in two places is not good.
[18:29] <jussi> ikonia: it wont be!
[18:29] <ikonia> jussi: won't what ?
[18:30] <jussi> be implemented until that happens, but we need to decide to do the work
[18:30] <ikonia> apologies if I'm missing something obvious
[18:30] <ikonia> jussi: ah, now I see what you're saying, sorry
[18:30] <jussi> :)
[18:30] <tsimpson> I'm certainly not going to hack on ubottu if we aren't even going to use eir
[18:30] <ikonia> I thought you where suggesting it won't be implimented until the bot is implimented
[18:30] <jussi> aye ;)
[18:31] <ikonia> implemented even
[18:32] <niko> uBOTu-fr used something similar to eir
[18:33] <nhandler> Hello mquin. We were talking about adding eir in #ubuntu. One concern was that it uses notices to notify the OP channel instead of normal MSGs. I know there was a reason for that and was hoping you could explain
[18:33] <jussi> o/ mquin
[18:35] <mquin> nhandler: it uses notices when responding to events on irc - normal behaviour as per the original RFC
[18:36] <nhandler> Ah, ok. I thought it was something like that but I wasn't positive
[18:36] <IdleOne> so instead of the op who set the ban getting a notice, a generic notice to the channel will be sent and an active op can review the ban?
[18:36] <ikonia> jussi: so how does that fit in with the request from operators for ubottu to not notice the channels ?
[18:36] <nhandler> IdleOne: The OP setting the ban will get a message sent privately to them requesting a comment be set
[18:37] <IdleOne> nhandler: I am asking about when the ban "expires"
[18:37] <ikonia> ah, so the message won't go to the channel, cool
[18:38] <IdleOne> sorry if I am not understanding or making myself clear on what I am trying to understand :)
[18:38] <jussi> right, so shal we quickly now cover the standing items and move on? We can return to this at the tail end of the meeting
[18:38] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[18:38] <tsimpson> we can just agree that in theory we want eir
[18:39] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[18:39] <tsimpson> and if we get the kings worked out, we'll use it
[18:39] <tsimpson> *kinks
[18:39] <tsimpson> there are no kings in eir ;)
[18:39] <nhandler> [AGREE] We want eir, but need to look into integration with ubottu and the notices
[18:39] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Standing Items
[18:39] <MootBot> New Topic:  Standing Items
[18:39] <nhandler> I don't see any new bugs
[18:40] <jussi> nor I.
[18:40] <topyli> i haven't done the stats, just realized
[18:41] <jussi> So, the bug parsing in #u?
[18:41] <nhandler> For actions, tsimpson was to enable bug parsing for #u, topyli was going to do stats for the trial period, elky was to send the email, jussi was to document some namespace limits, tsimpson was to update the wiki re:cloaks, send email, and talk to staff
[18:41] <tsimpson> done, done, done, and done
[18:42] <nhandler> Awesome tsimpson !
[18:42] <topyli> not done
[18:42] <jussi> I havent yet documented that, but Ive got thpoughts together. will attempt to get it don this week.
[18:42] <nhandler> [ACTION] jussi to document thoughts on namespace limits
[18:42] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jussi to document thoughts on namespace limits
[18:42] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to do stats for trial ubottu period (re: bug parsing in #ubuntu)
[18:43] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to do stats for trial ubottu period (re: bug parsing in #ubuntu)
[18:43] <topyli> i figure i'll still do the stats for two weeks, as per the original plan
[18:43] <nhandler> Sounds good topyli
[18:43] <nhandler> And it looks like elky sent the email
[18:43] <tsimpson> topyli: just do the stats from enabling to now, a larger dataset gives more accurate results
[18:44] <topyli> true
[18:44] <nhandler> I'll handle the post-meeting tasks
[18:44] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[18:44] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to do post-meeting tasks
[18:44] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Change Ubuntu IRC Members to restricted
[18:44] <MootBot> New Topic:  Change Ubuntu IRC Members to restricted
[18:44] <nhandler> jussi: Care to summarize the issue breifly?
[18:45] <jussi> We have random people applying to the team, and no one putting names on the agenda. if people want to apply, the proceedure is put names on the agenda
[18:46] <jussi> No need to have it so randoms apply to the LP team
[18:46] <nhandler> I tend to agree. It is not too much work to manually add accepted members to the team afterwards
[18:46] <jussi> (as most know, there are people who randomy apply to lots of different teams)
[18:46] <jussi> nhandler: also, this is what we do for cloaks (almost)
[18:47] <nhandler> Yep
[18:47] <topyli> agreed
[18:47] <nhandler> Any other thoughts on this?
[18:47] <jussi> lets vote
[18:47] <nhandler> [VOTE] Make Ubuntu IRC Members team restricted
[18:47] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Make Ubuntu IRC Members team restricted.
[18:47] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[18:47] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[18:47] <nhandler> +1
[18:47] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[18:47] <jussi> +1
[18:47] <topyli> 01
[18:47] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[18:47] <topyli> +1
[18:47] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[18:48] <jussi> tsimpson: *prod*
[18:48] <tsimpson> +i
[18:48] <tsimpson> i?
[18:48] <tsimpson> +1
[18:48] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[18:48] <topyli> :)
[18:48]  * tsimpson closes his codez
[18:49] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[18:49] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[18:49] <nhandler> [AGREED] Make Ubuntu IRC Members Restricted
[18:49] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Make Ubuntu IRC Members Restricted
[18:49] <nhandler> Does someone want that action (and to update the wiki pages regarding getting membership)
[18:50] <tsimpson> we should also reject the pending members while we're at it
[18:50] <nhandler> tsimpson: +1
[18:50] <topyli> the !wannabeanop factoid (or similar) also refers to an old blog post of mine, which will now be inaccurate
[18:51] <nhandler> I can take this action I guess
[18:51] <bazhang> canibeanop
[18:51] <tsimpson> topyli: that's different thing though
[18:51] <nhandler> [ACTION] nhandler to change Ubuntu IRC Members Team to restricted, reject pending members, and update wiki and factoids
[18:51] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nhandler to change Ubuntu IRC Members Team to restricted, reject pending members, and update wiki and factoids
[18:51] <tsimpson> IRC Member Vs IRC Operator
[18:51] <topyli> oh yeah
[18:52] <bazhang> what's the distinction?
[18:52] <nhandler> bazhang: IRC Members are Ubuntu Members but you get membership via the IRCC
[18:52] <jussi> bazhang: member is ubuntu member through irc contributions
[18:52] <tsimpson> nhandler: but not IRC operators
[18:53] <tsimpson> just making that clear from the above
[18:53] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Document expected behavior of people wearing ubuntu/member/* cloaks
[18:53] <MootBot> New Topic:  Document expected behavior of people wearing ubuntu/member/* cloaks
[18:53] <bazhang> so no membership for non-member ops
[18:53] <bazhang> ie restricted
[18:53] <nhandler> rww doesn't appear to be here
[18:53] <jussi> So looks like rww isnt about. do we have background on whats being asked here?
[18:53] <tsimpson> bazhang: all restricted means is that people who want to join have to do it properly, rather than just applying to the team and nothing else
[18:53] <IdleOne> I think I can talk a little about it
[18:53] <tsimpson> like people randomly joining LP teams
[18:53] <bazhang> tsimpson, okay thanks
[18:54] <nhandler> Not really. But my feelings tend to be that if someone is not acting appropriately with an Ubuntu Member cloak, it might be best to have the CC involved.
[18:54] <IdleOne> basically what rww asked was what the expected behaviour of an @ubuntu/member is when not in Ubuntu forums/IRC/Email
[18:55] <nhandler> It looks like topyli can present rww's item, but he has to run to the store. So we are going to quickly swap the last two items
[18:55] <nhandler> [TOPIC] #ubuntu-ops-team creation
[18:55] <MootBot> New Topic:  #ubuntu-ops-team creation
[18:55] <tsimpson> well, as an Ubuntu member in general, you have signed the CoC and agreed to abide by it
[18:55] <tsimpson> but we aren't going to police other IRC channels
[18:55] <tsimpson> remember that you *are* representing Ubuntu though
[18:55] <nhandler> jussi: You are up
[18:55] <IdleOne> tsimpson: the question is how far does that accountability extend
[18:56] <nhandler> IdleOne, tsimpson: We will come back to this
[18:56] <IdleOne> k
[18:56] <jussi> nhandler: I think this has been pretty well discussed on the ML, and has had enough time there
[18:56] <jussi> also discussed in -ops iirc
[18:57] <IdleOne> it was
[18:57] <nhandler> I'm still against this item. I think instead of moving the innappropriate comments to a private channel, we should be encouraging ours OPs to step away from the keyboard when they feel the desire to make such a comment
[18:57] <jussi> Unless there are objections, Im happy to just vote on it.
[18:58] <bazhang> nhandler, indeed
[18:58] <ikonia> nhandler: do freenode have any private channels ?
[18:58] <bazhang> its fine to feel frustrated, natural even.
[18:58] <ikonia> nhandler: (for staff to discuss issues)
[18:58] <tsimpson> it's more of the case where trolls are actively reading the -ops log to bait our ops
[18:58] <bazhang> but going off should be discouraged
[18:59] <tsimpson> the new channel will be CoC compliant at all times, and still logged, but not publicly
[18:59] <IdleOne> tsimpson: and will be ops only/
[18:59] <IdleOne> ?
[18:59] <IdleOne> by ops I include ircc and cc
[19:00] <ikonia> if the known problem users where just dismissed without the whole sham of discussing their "ban removal" this issue can be dropped
[19:00] <jussi> IdleOne: ops + selected others (such as representatives from large loco chans)
[19:00] <tsimpson> yeah, but not just core channel ops
[19:00] <nhandler> So if such a channel were to be made, it wouldn't be used as a place for OPs to simply make inappropriate comments about trolls/other users that they just want to keep out of the public logs and it would simply be used for private OP-related discussions?
[19:00] <tsimpson> it will be +i (as I understand it)
[19:00] <IdleOne> jussi: I would like to suggest inviting a rep from each approved loco
[19:00] <jussi> yes
[19:00] <bazhang> no need for such a channel.
[19:00] <ikonia> nhandler: if it's used for stupid comments as you are suggesting then it's failed
[19:01] <jussi> nhandler: thats the point of having it logged for the CC
[19:01] <ikonia> bazhang: there wouldn't be if you could say "$X is being a problem again" without 10 known problem users emailing the CC to say "look at the bias, remove this op now"
[19:01] <IdleOne> I would hope we don't resort to "stupid" comments but for actual discussion on how to handle a problem user.
[19:02] <nhandler> I'd be willing to try it on the condition that if it really isn't being used appropriately (i.e. turns into an OP social channel or channel for making inappropriate comments or something similar) that we shut it down
[19:02] <bazhang> the problem is people staying up / moderating too many hours consecutively and getting short fuses
[19:02] <ikonia> I'm sure that can be part of it
[19:02] <bazhang> just take a break when it reaches that point.
[19:02] <IdleOne> bazhang: that is part of the problem
[19:03] <ikonia> bazhang: re-read what I put
[19:03] <ikonia> (or read if it was lagging)
[19:03] <IdleOne> but the log readers who msg you to instigate and bait don't help
[19:03] <ikonia> there is a larger issue that known problems users aren't just dismiseed
[19:04] <bazhang> ikonia, yes, I saw, but root4rded et all will pick on people no matter what we say. so best to step away when it gets to be too much
[19:04] <bazhang> we need to react less to said bait then.
[19:04] <jussi> nhandler: I dont have a probem with that - either shutting it down or removing those who refuse to comply with the rules.
[19:04] <ikonia> bazhang: it's not just about protecting the individual, I'd like to be able to warn you of a situation without the IRCC being mailed about it as showing bias, or some other silly issue that then has to be investigated according to policy
[19:04] <nhandler> bazhang: +1
[19:05] <bazhang> ikonia, fair point.
[19:05] <jussi> any other concerns?
[19:05] <IdleOne> also ircc should expect an email about r00t4rd3d being mentioned in this meeting
[19:06] <bazhang> who cares.
[19:06] <IdleOne> but that has nothing to do with anything
[19:06] <ikonia> IdleOne: that's a seperate issue that we have to go through these dances with these users knowing their intention
[19:06] <ikonia> bazhang: I'd love to say "agreed" but policy has to be followed
[19:06] <nhandler> [VOTE] #ubuntu-ops-team creation (with review of channel 2 weeks after creation)
[19:06] <MootBot> Please vote on:  #ubuntu-ops-team creation (with review of channel 2 weeks after creation).
[19:06] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[19:06] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:06] <jussi> +1
[19:06] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:06] <topyli> +1
[19:06] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:07] <IdleOne> plus1
[19:07] <nhandler> +1
[19:07] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:07] <tsimpson> +1
[19:07] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[19:07] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[19:07] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[19:07] <bazhang> so no idlers there either? or completely secret and hidden
[19:07] <nhandler> [AGREED] #ubuntu-ops-team creation (with review of channel 2 weeks after creation)
[19:07] <MootBot> AGREED received:  #ubuntu-ops-team creation (with review of channel 2 weeks after creation)
[19:07] <jussi> tsimpson: are you able to take care of the logging via ubottu?
[19:07] <nhandler> bazhang: The plan was +i
[19:07] <tsimpson> bazhang: invite only
[19:08] <tsimpson> jussi: I think so
[19:08] <nhandler> Who wants the actions to get this channel sorted out and send out the relevant emails?
[19:08] <nhandler> tsimpson: ?
[19:08] <jussi> me
[19:08] <nhandler> That works too ;)
[19:08] <topyli> :)
[19:08] <nhandler> [ACTION] jussi to get channel sorted out and send out necessary announcements
[19:08] <jussi> nhandler: tsimpson can take care of the logging
[19:08] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jussi to get channel sorted out and send out necessary announcements
[19:08] <bazhang> thanks for addressing my concerns.
[19:08] <nhandler> [ACTION] tsimpson to sort out the channel logging
[19:08] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to sort out the channel logging
[19:09] <nhandler> Let's go back to rww's item
[19:09] <topyli> ok
[19:09] <nhandler> [TOPIC] Document expected behavior of people wearing ubuntu/member/* cloaks
[19:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Document expected behavior of people wearing ubuntu/member/* cloaks
[19:09] <topyli> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/25/%23ubuntu-ops.html#t06:32
[19:09] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/25/%23ubuntu-ops.html#t06:32
[19:09] <topyli> rww requests an update to IRC/Cloaks on behaviour *outside* our namespace while wearing cloaks
[19:10] <nhandler> If it is outside our namespace, I would think the issue would fall to the CC rather than the IRCC (it is the same as an Ubuntu Member acting inappropriately on a non-Ubuntu website)
[19:11] <nhandler> If they decide the user is not acting appropriately and revoke the membership, we would obviously also revoke the cloak
[19:11] <tsimpson> I'd just say, be mindful that you are representing Ubuntu while wearing the cloak
[19:11] <topyli> i agree that cloak-wearing members do represent ubuntu in general though, even though this is not an irc issue as such. a reminder on the wiki page wouldn't hurt
[19:11] <ikonia> are you kidding me /
[19:11] <ikonia> half the developers wear ubuntu cloaks and swear in the ubuntu channels ?
[19:12] <tsimpson> it's really nothing more than just being an Ubuntu member, or using your @ubuntu.com address
[19:12] <nhandler> There is nothing that says you can't swear. It really depends on the context ikonia.
[19:12] <ikonia> you're worried about people outside our name space when it's actually going on within the name space
[19:12] <topyli> ikonia: obviously we behave appropriately to each channel
[19:12] <ikonia> really ?
[19:13] <ikonia> so there are ubuntu channels that allow bad language ?
[19:13] <ikonia> that's acceptable ( I thought the requirements for an official ubuntu channel where being drawn up)
[19:13] <tsimpson> #ubuntu channels are only required to abide by the CoC
[19:13] <nhandler> ikonia: Yes, just saying a swear does not violate the CoC. The closest thing iirc is the 'Be Respectful' part
[19:13] <tsimpson> everything else is opt-in
[19:13] <IdleOne> so if #ubuntu-* has a culture of cursing it's ok?
[19:13] <ikonia> really ?
[19:13] <ikonia> so if I say "fucking cool" now, that's acceptable ?
[19:13] <ikonia> as I think it's cool
[19:14] <ikonia> (I don't)
[19:14] <nhandler> ikonia: In what channel?
[19:14] <ikonia> this channel
[19:14] <jussi> No.
[19:14] <topyli> this is a public meeting :)
[19:14] <ikonia> how about in #ubuntu-devel
[19:14] <ikonia> topyli: apologies, it's an example
[19:14] <jussi> Id like to point out the language and subject part on the IRC guidelines
[19:14] <IdleOne> so what are the irc guidelines for?
[19:14] <ikonia> jussi: I know, that's why I'm so surprised
[19:14] <nhandler> Those are enforced in the core channels
[19:14] <tsimpson> randomly swearing in channels is not being respectful
[19:14] <nhandler> The CoC is for all channels
[19:14] <ikonia> nhandler: is this a core channel ?
[19:14] <nhandler> Yes
[19:15] <jussi> ikonia: its up to the chanops - there can be leeway given
[19:15] <ikonia> tsimpson: I agree, so again I ask #ubuntu-devel
[19:15] <ikonia> ooh my word how weak
[19:15] <tsimpson> I haven't seen anyone in there just random start swearing just because "they can"
[19:15] <topyli> ikonia: it's sad if -devel has a bad culture on that issue
[19:15] <ikonia> topyli: using swearing in conversation is not respectul
[19:15] <ikonia> oops, that was for tsimpson
[19:16] <jussi> We put the guidelines up, and to a large extent, we expect them followed. But just as some chans accept paastes, others have different tolerences on language,
[19:16] <ikonia> topyli: I agree, I just wonder why we are worried about representation outside out namespace but don't hold it inside
[19:16] <topyli> ikonia: let's hold it then. i'm not an op on -devel
[19:16] <nhandler> ikonia: Read what was said. The CC would be the folks to really deal with that
[19:16] <ikonia> nhandler: even inside out name space ?
[19:17] <ikonia> are the ubuntu IRC council responsiable for the whole of the ubuntu-* name space, or just core channels ?
[19:18] <tsimpson> the current issue is about behaviour outside of the namespace
[19:18] <ikonia> that doesn't stop you responding to my question
[19:18] <ikonia> as I'm raising the fact that we do not control behaviour within the name space
[19:19] <topyli> that's a different failure
[19:19] <tsimpson> ikonia: this has been explained to you a few times, the IRC council coordinate with other councils and their channels
[19:19] <nhandler> ikonia: We have the delegation from the CC and freenode for all of the namespace, but we also delegate some authority to the individual channel OPs
[19:19] <ikonia> or shall I drop it and we can move on
[19:19] <tsimpson> I'm not going to explain it yet again
[19:19] <ikonia> tsimpson: clearly you need to as it conflicts with nhandler's statment
[19:20] <ikonia> you ARE responsible
[19:20] <nhandler> ikonia: No it doesn't
[19:20] <topyli> hi rww :)
[19:20] <ikonia> I'll drop this then as it's clear you don't want to address it
[19:20] <tsimpson> if you think the IRCC should act without care or concern for another governing council, then I can only say I disagree
[19:20] <ikonia> tsimpson: not at all, I don't think that at all, but overall ownership is the council
[19:21] <topyli> rww: good timing. we were just discussing your item before moving on to ircc metaphysics
[19:21] <nhandler> So do we want to add a small reminder to the wiki page?
[19:21] <tsimpson> the CC owns everything Ubuntu, we are delegated from them to look after IRC land
[19:22] <ikonia> tsimpson: ok, that's as I understood it also
[19:22] <IdleOne> So how does the CC feel about swearing in some irc channels and not others?
[19:22] <rww> hey all, sorry I'm late >.>
[19:22] <tsimpson> the CC are mainly concerned with CoC compliance
[19:22] <ikonia> ok is bad language a Coc compliance ?
[19:22] <nhandler> Depends on the situation
[19:22] <ikonia> does it ??
[19:23] <ikonia> language is offensive or not
[19:23] <charlie-tca> I thought swearing was wrong if any person indicates they are offended by the language
[19:23] <tsimpson> it does, there have times where it has clearly been used to attack others been issues brought to them about
[19:23] <nhandler> charlie-tca: That is a big factor
[19:23] <ikonia> in what situation is "fuck" acceptable ?
[19:23] <tsimpson> ikonia: in #ubuntu, never, but that's because we chose to make it not acceptable there
[19:23] <bazhang> the programming language presumably
[19:24] <ikonia> in any ubuntu channel, what situation would "fuck" be acceptable
[19:24] <IdleOne> if a person appears to be really stressed out and needing of release I could tell them "Go fuck yourself" ?
[19:24] <nhandler> ikonia: If you have a particular situation you were offended by, we would be glad to review it (or refer it to the CC if necessary)
[19:24] <tsimpson> charlie-tca: indeed, if someone in the channel asks you to stop, you should respect that
[19:24] <ikonia> bazhang: touche'
[19:24] <ikonia> nhandler: I'm offended by any bad language in any ubuntu channel
[19:24] <bazhang> lets not abuse the rhetoric please
[19:25] <IdleOne> not trying to abuse I am asking a question to a specific circumstance
[19:25] <jussi> Peopes, I have other places to be, are we almost done?
[19:25] <topyli> i'm offended by the poor treatment rww's agenda item is getting
[19:25] <ikonia> topyli: agreed, I apologise
[19:25] <nhandler> Can I get an answer to my previous question about if we want to add the comment to the wiki page?
[19:25] <ikonia> and of course to rww
[19:26] <tsimpson> we choose in the support channels to not allow it, this is in addition to enforcing the CoC
[19:26] <IdleOne> nhandler: I think a comment to the wiki about remembering we represent Ubuntu as members would be fine
[19:26] <jussi> nhandler: ++1
[19:26] <tsimpson> I'm not going to get into a debate about which words may or may not be acceptable in a certain channel under an certain situation and in what context
[19:27] <ikonia> tsimpson: I'll drop it, carry on as normal, my apologies
[19:27] <nhandler> tsimpson, topyli: What do you think?
[19:27] <topyli> i think a general reminder about being a representative of ubuntu is in order
[19:27] <tsimpson> sure, that sounds good
[19:28] <topyli> rww: do you have anything in particular in mind for the page?
[19:28] <nhandler> [VOTE] Add note about representing Ubuntu as a member to the wiki page
[19:28] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Add note about representing Ubuntu as a member to the wiki page.
[19:28] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[19:28] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:28] <nhandler> +1
[19:28] <MootBot> +1 received from nhandler. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:28] <topyli> +1
[19:28] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:28] <tsimpson> +1
[19:28] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:28] <rww> I'm missing scrollback here, but I was originally told that CoC applies throughout freenode to people wearing ubuntu/member/* cloaks, hence the agenda item appearing. If /that's/ the case, it's rather more strong than a general reminder would imply (and if it's not the case, apologies for my lack of scrollback again)
[19:29] <MootBot> Private +1 vote received. 4 for, 0 against, 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[19:29] <nhandler> [ENDVOTE]
[19:29] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[19:29] <tsimpson> rww: as an ubuntu member, you signed and agreed to abide by the CoC when representing Ubuntu
[19:29] <nhandler> [AGREED] Add note about representing Ubuntu as a member to the wiki page
[19:29] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Add note about representing Ubuntu as a member to the wiki page
[19:29] <nhandler> Who wants to add the note?
[19:29] <topyli> i can do it
[19:29] <rww> tsimpson: k, that works then.
[19:29] <nhandler> [ACTION] topyli to update wiki page
[19:29] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to update wiki page
[19:30] <topyli> possibly with help from rww :)
[19:30] <nhandler> :)
[19:30] <tsimpson> suggestions for wording are appreciated :)
[19:30] <jussi> ok, Im off. Sorry to leave you all.
[19:30] <rww> I'll have a think once I stop juggling scrollback :)
[19:30] <nhandler> For the eir issue of notices, we will discuss this a bit more (as well as work on the ubottu integration). We'll send out an email before it gets added to the channel though.
[19:31] <topyli> jussi: we're through the agenda, so feel free :)
[19:31] <nhandler> Thanks for coming
[19:31] <bazhang> eir seems very uncontroversial at this point
[19:31] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[19:31] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:31.