[19:00] <nhandler> topyli, jussi, tsimpson, elky: Who is around?
[19:00] <tsimpson> \o
[19:01] <topyli> \o
[19:02] <topyli> i suppose jussi will also join, give him a minute
[19:03] <jussi> sorry, Im here
[19:03] <jussi> #startmeeting
[19:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:03. The chair is jussi.
[19:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:04] <jussi> [topic] Add eir to #ubuntu
[19:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Add eir to #ubuntu
[19:04] <jussi> nhandler:
[19:04] <nhandler> tsimpson: Do you want to give a brief summary about the eir-ubottu integration progress?
[19:04] <jussi> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal#Add%20eir%20to%20%23ubuntu
[19:05] <tsimpson> jussi: you forgot the fixed items
[19:05] <jussi> oh yeah
[19:05] <jussi> hang on.
[19:05] <jussi> No new bugs
[19:05] <topyli> zarro boogs
[19:06] <jussi> bah, slow wiki
[19:06] <jussi> ok, lets go onto nhandler's item
[19:07] <jussi> I can get the TR up yet
[19:07] <jussi> oh, wait, here it is
[19:07]  * rww is multitasking and tabbing in and out of this window
[19:07] <jussi> so, tsimpson, you did a wiki page for the UDS ideas. did we get many?
[19:09] <jussi> My action: Action: jussi to get staff to drop #ubuntu-helpteam
[19:09] <jussi> I did do that
[19:09] <jussi> and the whole ircc had an action: IRCC to drop unused and off-topic channels, and contact other channels with freenode-staff as founder
[19:09] <jussi> any of you want to comment on it?
[19:10] <jussi> topyli: tsimpson nhandler!
[19:10] <topyli> it's not done
[19:10] <nhandler> jussi: That was my idea for a project for the next cycle. We started it, but it will take some time
[19:10] <jussi> ok, looks like terence has departed...
[19:11] <jussi> so, nhandler, have you anymore to say about eir?
[19:12] <nhandler> jussi: tsimpson has been working on getting ubottu to be able to keep the BT updated when people use eir to manage bans. He says he is alsmost ready to test that functionality. Once it is working, we will get eir added
[19:12] <jussi> right, that seems pretty clear to me - would like to know how that is progressing.
[19:13] <jussi> Unfortunately I guess we cant right now.
[19:13] <nhandler> jussi: It looks like it is coming along pretty well if he is almost ready for testing
[19:13] <jussi> [topic] any other business?
[19:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  any other business?
[19:13] <topyli> there is the namespace limits item
[19:14] <topyli> jussi: ^
[19:14] <LjL> i have an issue to raise
[19:14] <jussi> oh, yeah I forgot that
[19:14] <jussi> LjL: please do
[19:14] <jussi> topyli: Ill get to that in a min
[19:15] <LjL> i previously contacted the IRC Council about idoru in #ubuntu. i've found out that it has what is in my opinion a worryingly high number of misfirings (people who repeat their question, or people who crosspost, mostly). the IRC Council might be able to provide the pastebin post i gave them detailing my findings (i'm not on my computer at the moment)
[19:15] <jussi> http://paste.ubuntu.com/594660/
[19:16] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://paste.ubuntu.com/594660/
[19:16] <LjL> thanks
[19:16] <jussi> LjL: what action would you like to see happen?
[19:17] <LjL> jussi: ideally idoru should be adjusted, but i guess that's up to freenode staff. if the situation can't be improved quite quicky, i'd recommend idoru to be removed from #ubuntu for now
[19:18] <rww> As I've mentioned in #ubuntu-ops in the past, I have the same opinion as LjL on this. It seems a very sub-optimal user experience for people seeking help (albeit over-enthusiastically) to suddenly find themselves ejected from the network.
[19:18] <LjL> note, for those that might not know, that idoru actually k-lines.
[19:18] <rww> It's not good for Ubuntu's image and it's bad catalysing.
[19:20] <nhandler> One thing to note, even if we didn't have idoru in #ubuntu, many of these people would have still gotten hit by idoru for what they have done in other channels.
[19:20] <rww> Then hopefully other channels will follow suit until idoru is fixed.
[19:21] <nhandler> Well, you are looking at things from a single channel point of view. Sending the same question to all somewhat-related channels on the network is definitely not a good thing. And idoru does catch MANY bots and other problem users each days
[19:21] <rww> I'm looking at things from the point of view that freenode's bot has a 50% accuracy rate and is doing things that I would be told off for doing.
[19:22] <nhandler> Well, that all depends on your definition of "accurate"
[19:22] <rww> If I kickbanned people, even temporarily, for crossposting without any sort of warning, I'd expect an IRCC member to PM me shortly. What idoru is doing is worse than kickbanning.
[19:23] <jussi> nhandler: are there any opportunities for people to contribute to idoru?
[19:23] <nhandler> rww: That is because you are a channel operator, not a network opper. Some things might not necessarly violate a channel's policies, but they might violate network rules.
[19:23] <jussi> wb tsimpson
[19:23] <nhandler> jussi: In what way?
[19:23] <jussi> nhandler: is idoru open source? can we do the work?
[19:23] <nhandler> jussi: They can contribute suggestions, but the source is not available.
[19:23] <rww> nhandler: freenode's bot is violating freenode's guidelines on catalysing and Ubuntu's guidelines on operating.
[19:24] <rww> It really is as simple as that from where I'm sitting.
[19:24] <topyli> it's not really bound by any ubuntu guidelines though
[19:24] <tsimpson> power cut :/
[19:25] <rww> topyli: It's effectively denying access to #ubuntu using information it gets from sitting in #ubuntu. It should be.
[19:25] <tsimpson> so, I was going to say that I think I have a working implementation of eir integration, and I should be ready for so live testing soon-ish
[19:25] <nhandler> rww: Like I mentioned, users would still be getting klined and prevented from accessing #ubuntu even if the bot wasn't in there
[19:26] <LjL> i'd like to point out, also, that i've been super careful in writing the floodbots so that they wouldn't *temporarily* the wrong people, and for quite a while i still had people who were concerned about it. then a freenode bot is suddenly introduced that partly duplicates the functionality, except it k-lines at first offence.
[19:26] <nhandler> tsimpson: Great. LjL brought up the idoru topic
[19:26] <tsimpson> it will only interact with the btset eir command and only in #ubuntu-ops-team
[19:26] <rww> nhandler: I've already answered that.
[19:27] <nhandler> LjL: The FloodBots are channel bots, banning and quieting to deal with channel problems. idoru is designed for the network
[19:27] <LjL> well, it acts on things that are happenings on just #ubuntu too, though.
[19:27] <LjL> anyway my point is that two different and contrary criteria are being applied.
[19:28] <jussi> LjL: however, the happenings that are only ubuntu are rarely false positives, no?
[19:28] <nhandler> jussi: That depends on what you consider a "false positive".
[19:28] <LjL> jussi: they are *MOSTLY* false positives.
[19:28] <LjL> jussi: my paste only contains things were something visible happened in #ubuntu, note that
[19:29] <jussi> LjL: but you only monitored #u, not the who network, right?
[19:30] <jussi> so if someone did those things across lots of channels, it wouldnt be a false positive?
[19:30] <LjL> jussi: i'm pretty sure repeating the same question quickly three or four times will get you k-lined even if you only do that in #ubuntu
[19:31] <LjL> i'd prefer not to give a practical demonstration but i will if you're not convinced ;)
[19:31] <jussi> nhandler: can you comment here?
[19:31] <rww> If I sat in every channel on the network and kickbanned people that crossposted their question to three different channels from #ubuntu, would that be acceptable behavior?
[19:31] <nhandler> LjL: Not necessarily. There are some checks in idoru to prevent people from getting klined. Although, I cannot reveal what those are.
[19:32] <jussi> rww: no, because you are not a network staffer. its freenode staffs decisions if they care to do that
[19:33] <rww> jussi: I do not feel it is right for us to allow the presence of a bot that does things we are not supposed to do, regardless of whether freenode thinks it's a good idea.
[19:33] <nhandler> It is also worth noting that idoru is a very big asset when we get large bot attacks in #ubuntu or on the network in general
[19:33] <LjL> the floodbots also deal with attacks on #ubuntu
[19:33] <jussi> rww: you arent supposed to kline anyone (and you cant) - so therefore we shouldnt allow freenode staffers?
[19:34] <LjL> the way you and jussi are speaking, you're sounding like #ubuntu should be a well to draw from for idoru to ban :\
[19:34] <nhandler> We are looking at channel issues, staff focus on network issues
[19:34] <rww> jussi: I'm applying the strongest equivalent I can do. If it's not acceptable for me to be kickbanning people, it doesn't make sense for it to be acceptable for it to kline people.
[19:35] <rww> This is an Ubuntu IRC Council meeting. Our scope is deciding what's best for Ubuntu and its IRC channels. K-lining people without warning for the sort of things idoru k-lines people for 50% of the time is not best for Ubuntu or its IRC channels.
[19:35] <topyli> note that we don't really get to say what is and what isn't acceptable for freenode staff or their bots to do. we can discuss having idoru in #ubuntu or removing it
[19:36] <rww> We have bots that get rid of spammers from #ubuntu just as well or better than idoru does, with a lot less mess.
[19:36] <jussi> right, I still fell idoru does more good than harm, and on that basis, I would like it to stay.
[19:36] <tsimpson> the point of idoru is that it doesn't just look at #ubuntu
[19:36] <tsimpson> it looks at many channels, and so is better able to protect #ubuntu
[19:37] <rww> tsimpson: 1) It doesn't actually protect #ubuntu better than the Floodbots, in my experience, 2) we have a bo that does that anyway.
[19:38] <LjL> 3) it kills a lot of innocents
[19:38] <nhandler> So for instance, if a bot attack starts taking place in #freenode, idoru has the ability to kline the bots before they have a chance to spread to #ubuntu as well as the reverse (killing #ubuntu bots before they hit other channels)
[19:38] <LjL> which is the main point here i'm sure
[19:38] <tsimpson> rww: it does, if a spammer spams #ubuntu, a kill is better than a temporary quiet
[19:38] <rww> tsimpson: If a spammer spams #ubuntu, FloodBot quiets them until our capable op team notices and removes them.
[19:38] <rww> afaik, we effectively have 24/7 coverage these days
[19:38] <rww> unlike, I note, freenode staff.
[19:39] <tsimpson> rww: and if no op is active, people just suffer
[19:39] <LjL> and people don't suffer when they get k-lined for having crossposted or repeated a little?
[19:39] <tsimpson> the thing we are missing, and which we can only speculate on, is how many attacks/spam/floods the bot *has* protected #ubuntu from
[19:39] <nhandler> rww: That isn't necessarily true
[19:39] <rww> tsimpson: which is what happens when no ircops are looking at idoru
[19:39] <LjL> tsimpson: no we aren't
[19:39] <LjL> nobody is missing that
[19:39] <LjL> the problem is
[19:39] <LjL> LOT OF FALSE POSITIVES COMPARED TO TRUE POSITIVES
[19:39] <LjL> even possibly the majority
[19:39] <LjL> and that is SIMPLY NOT ACCEPTABLE
[19:40] <tsimpson> rww: we don't have 24/7 coverage in #ubuntu, even with all the ops we have
[19:40] <nhandler> LjL: That is based on your definition of "false positive"
[19:40] <topyli> calm down please :)
[19:40] <LjL> nhandler: yes, i'm sure my definition always fit that of ubuntu ops until now
[19:40] <LjL> repeating is not a k-lineable offence
[19:40] <LjL> crossposting a valid question is not a k-lineable offence
[19:40] <LjL> freenode is free to think otherwise, but Ubuntu can and should be free to refuse having their bot in #ubuntu
[19:41] <tsimpson> we are free to refuse having the bot in #ubuntu
[19:41] <LjL> that said, if idoru is allowed to stay in its current form, i believe the floodbots are just duplicating functionality (idoru is "more effective" as it both k-lines and acts more frequently)
[19:41] <tsimpson> no pressure has been applied for us to have it, we asked for it and we got it
[19:41] <nhandler> LjL: That isn't necessarily true. And the floodbots check for different things than idoru
[19:44] <topyli> so. should we remove idoru from #ubuntu for some trial period and see if heaven falls?
[19:44] <topyli> nhandler: can we get it back easily in case of heavenly threat?
[19:44] <tsimpson> topyli: I don't think we should
[19:44] <tsimpson> if we remove it for some time, it gets removed for that time
[19:45] <jussi> [vote] remove idoru from #ubuntu for some trial period and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen?
[19:45] <MootBot> Please vote on:  remove idoru from #ubuntu for some trial period and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen?.
[19:45] <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
[19:45] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:45] <tsimpson> otherwise we get no real data on how useful it is
[19:45] <topyli> tsimpson: just trying to formulate a proposal we can decide on
[19:45] <nhandler> -1
[19:45] <MootBot> -1 received from nhandler. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
[19:45] <jussi> wait
[19:46] <jussi> [endvote]
[19:46] <MootBot> Final result is 0 for, 1 against. 0 abstained. Total: -1
[19:46] <jussi> lets try again
[19:46] <topyli> heh. didn't pass. next!
[19:46] <jussi> [vote] remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen?
[19:46] <MootBot> Please vote on:  remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen?.
[19:46] <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
[19:46] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:46] <nhandler> -1
[19:46] <MootBot> -1 received from nhandler. 0 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now -1
[19:46] <jussi> That should be long enough to tell, but not disrupt too much
[19:46] <jussi> +1
[19:47] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 1 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 0
[19:47] <topyli> +1
[19:47] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:47] <tsimpson> +0
[19:47] <MootBot> Abstention received from tsimpson. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:48] <tsimpson> I'm not convinced it needs to go, but as the vote is currently +1, we should go forward with it
[19:48] <tsimpson> (count my +0 as a 50% -1, 50% +1)
[19:48] <topyli> the only way to find out, come hell or high water
[19:48] <nhandler> tsimpson: A majority of the seated council is not in agreement
[19:48] <jussi> [endvote]
[19:48] <MootBot> Final result is 2 for, 1 against. 1 abstained. Total: 1
[19:49] <tsimpson> nhandler: which is why I stated the above, if it's required I change it to +1 in this instance
[19:49] <jussi> We need to get a + or - from elky
[19:49] <nhandler> tsimpson: Alright, that would be better (per the charter)
[19:49] <tsimpson> nhandler: I personally don't agree with it, but if it helps bring an end to the argument I'll go for it
[19:49] <jussi> tsimpson: so you have chnged to a +1 ?
[19:50] <tsimpson> jussi: technically
[19:50] <jussi> ok
[19:50] <nhandler> Shall I action it?
[19:50] <tsimpson> my +1 is more for the "get the argument resolved"
[19:50] <jussi> [action] remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler)
[19:50] <MootBot> ACTION received:  remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler)
[19:51] <nhandler> 1303671052 13:50:52 -!- idoru [idoru@freenode/utility-bot/ex-server/idoru] has left #ubuntu []
[19:51] <jussi> ok, tsimpson, about eir?
[19:51] <topyli> nhandler: you don't have to monitor the heavens all the time though, the action is just for the bot
[19:51] <nhandler> jussi: He commented on that when he rejoined
[19:51] <nhandler> topyli: :)
[19:51] <topyli> :)
 so, I was going to say that I think I have a working implementation of eir integration, and I should be ready for so live testing soon-ish... it will only interact with the btset eir command and only in #ubuntu-ops-team
[19:52] <jussi> tsimpson: so, what needs to happen next then ?
[19:52] <nhandler> jussi: He needs to finish the code and we need to test it to see if it works
[19:52] <tsimpson> I only need to find a way to get some real-world testing, simulations aren't really good if I control the input data
[19:53] <tsimpson> I *think* it's about ready for real testing, I doubt it's completely working, but I need to test to see if/how/why
[19:53] <nhandler> tsimpson: If you can toggle the channel ubottu monitors for eir commands, I can get you testing
[19:53] <jussi> ok, so is there any action needed? or just continue as was?
[19:53] <tsimpson> nhandler: it's already configurable :)
[19:53] <nhandler> :)
[19:53] <tsimpson> jussi: no action, it's all part of the original action
[19:53] <jussi> ok great.
[19:53] <nhandler> tsimpson: Alright. Poke me when you are ready to test.
[19:54] <tsimpson> nhandler: k
[19:54] <jussi> so, my item thats been hanging for a few weeks
[19:55] <jussi> Im really not sure how to proceed with this, nor what we had intended to document. Im kind of struggling, and Id appreciate a bit of help with it. anyone want to help out?
[19:55] <nhandler> jussi: What item is this again?
[19:55] <tsimpson> our namespace policy thing?
[19:55] <jussi> document the namespace limits
[19:56] <tsimpson> so what kind channels we allow in our namespace and what ones aren't appropriate for our namespace
[19:56] <tsimpson> is #ubuntu-some-random-topic ok, or not...
[19:56] <jussi> In any case, Id appreciate a little help on this.
[19:57] <tsimpson> currently, we have a kind of unwritten policy of allowing ubuntu related teams (as in Launchpad teams) to create channels, but that's not a great policy
[19:58] <tsimpson> anyone can create a launchpad team about anything, and stick the word "ubuntu" in there somewhere
[19:58] <nhandler> Well, the hard part is, there is no way until the GMS is done to really restrict creating a channel
[19:58] <jussi> Just thinking about this, perhaps this is a good thing to discus at UDS?
[19:58] <nhandler> By restrict, I mean through technical means
[19:58] <nhandler> jussi: How many IRCC folks are attending?
[19:59] <tsimpson> but we should still have a policy in place as to what is acceptable as an official channel, and what's not
[19:59] <jussi> nhandler: remotely or in person?
[19:59] <nhandler> jussi: In person
[20:00] <nhandler> tsimpson: Yeah, although for a lot of channels (as we saw when we started going through the list), it is fairly easy to tell if they are appropriate or not
[20:00] <tsimpson> I think just jussi is attending UDS
[20:00] <jussi> Yes, afaik
[20:00] <topyli> we'll of course all attend the irc sessions one way or another :)
[20:00]  * rww has this image of jussi sitting in a room by himself talking to a computer
[20:00] <nhandler> topyli: I probably won't be able to
[20:00] <topyli> oh
[20:01] <nhandler> But in that case, it would probably be better to at least have some discussions before UDS.
[20:01] <tsimpson> I'm not 100% on if I'll be remotely attending or not, I hope to, and I'll try to, but I can't say I will be
[20:01] <topyli> btw fridge says there's another meeting coming up. is this so?
[20:01] <jussi> topyli: which meeting?
[20:01] <nhandler> I also don't want to see us fall into the trap of having decisions/actions made at uds for us if only one person from the council is there. Discussion is fine, but actions should be made after we talk about it
[20:01] <topyli> ubuntu-gaming
[20:01] <topyli> team
[20:02] <nhandler> topyli: Yep. Not sure if they are here or not.
[20:02] <nhandler> Any Ubuntu Gaming folks here for the meeting?
[20:02] <jussi> Ok, well shall we leave it there for the night, talk some about it at UDS, and make a document for the meeting after UDS?
[20:02] <jussi> and anyone want to volunteer to help me out with it ?
[20:02] <tsimpson> there is no reason we can't start the discussion before UDS
[20:03] <nhandler> +1 tsimpson
[20:03] <topyli> i can help, we should have some thoughts to discuss at uds
[20:03] <nhandler> jussi: After the second week in may, I'll have a lot more free time to help with this stuff.
[20:03] <topyli> the sessions are short!
[20:03] <jussi> yes, I agree, my point was to aim for the meeting after udsd to have a document to vote on
[20:03] <tsimpson> I'm sure some people on the CC would probably want to provide some thoughts on what is/isn't appropriate too
[20:03] <jussi> tsimpson: very good point
[20:03] <nhandler> tsimpson: I think they have already done that in a way via the CoC
[20:04] <nhandler> We also have the freenode guidelines for offtopic stuff that we can mention in our doc
[20:04] <tsimpson> nhandler: the CoC is very generalized, some specific thoughts regarding IRC would be nice
[20:04] <topyli> the CoC allows a channel to be created for ubuntu-smokers
[20:04] <tsimpson> all ubuntu channels are required to follow the CoC, but other than that there is no restriction on what is allowed
[20:05] <jussi> In anycase, there is both another meeting, and other places for me to be. can we agree to continue this discussion elsewhere?
[20:05]  * tsimpson senses the mailing list being useful
[20:05] <topyli> let's agree that we'll work on this, and move on :)
[20:05] <topyli> tsimpson: worth a try
[20:06] <jussi> someone want to write the mail to the list?
[20:06] <topyli> jussi: i can't wait to do it
[20:06] <rww> hehe
[20:07] <jussi> [action] Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli)
[20:07] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli)
[20:07] <topyli> err, i can do it if no-one else will :)
[20:07] <jussi> thank you very much. :=)
[20:07] <jussi> #endmeeting
[20:07] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:07.
[20:07] <jussi> thanks everyone
[20:07] <topyli> thanks