=== noy_ is now known as noy
=== Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
elkytopyli doesn't want to dance with us, rww :(11:00
topylii do, but only for 40 minutes max11:00
topylihave to take wife to doctor, she is ill11:00
elkythen we'd better start11:01
meetingologyMeeting started Sat Oct  8 11:01:21 2011 UTC.  The chair is jussi. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.11:01
meetingologyAvailable commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired11:01
topylii shouldn't chair11:01
topyliah thanks jussi11:01
jussi#topic Bugs11:01
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Bugs
jussi#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-irc-council11:01
elkyI thought he fixed that...11:02
jussiAnyway, theres just the one bug.11:02
jussiany updates from anyone?11:02
topylithere's also an action item appointed to me and jussi, not done11:02
topyli(related to this bug)11:02
jussiOh far out, Id forgotten about that - lets make sure we get that done by next time11:03
jussiright, next topic.11:03
jussi#topic Review last meetings action items11:03
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Review last meetings action items
jussiACTION: nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson11:04
jussiand the one topyli has mentioned11:04
topylii think nhandler has done this11:04
topylioh not the urls11:04
elkyI believe that was done by collaboration between alanbell and staff actually11:04
jussiThat one has been partially done but both nhandler and tsimpson are now not really around11:04
rwweir is currently set to nag every six hours, so I think that bit's sorted.11:05
jussianywayp, not much more we can do at this time on that.11:06
elkynext item then?11:06
jussiright, so the next item is discussion only, we dont expect to be making a decision today on how this will happen11:06
jussi#topic Make Lubuntu channels core after Oneiric release11:07
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Make Lubuntu channels core after Oneiric release
jussitopyli: want to summarise?11:07
topylithe main thing here is adding ops to -ops instead of -irc i think, and make sure their conduct is in line with the rest of the team (i.e. following the leadership guidelines and other documentation)11:08
topylithe channel works, no issue there afaik11:08
topylithis doesn't have to happen one second after release, but eventually core is core11:09
elky*if* it happens.11:09
rwwThe channel works because it is tiny, not necessarily because it is correctly run.11:09
rwwAs I've mentioned to the IRCC, I have serious misgivings about adding the current set of #lubuntu operators as core ops, and strongly recommend that they go through an application process to weed out unqualified ops and add qualified ones.11:10
elkyI personally have strong doubts of the wisdom of putting them in -ops. I think it to be frankly unwise.11:10
topyliif the channel grows as a result of lubuntu being official, and/or starts attracting more trolls, we'll help grow the team11:10
rwwThe channel itself I have no problem with being core. I do have a problem with the way IRCC seems to be planning to go about it.11:10
jussiI dont think the discussion is about whether the channel becomes core - that to me seems a given. (in line with our policy of what is core and what isnt).11:10
topyliwell, any ops that are unsuitable will be dealt with just like everybody else, and new ops will be sought as necessary11:11
elkyjussi, the policy would need to be rewritten if you're going to us the policy as any form of argument for this.11:11
elkythe policy simply does not handle this situation at all11:11
elkytopyli, we are poor at dealing with troublesome ops we already have.11:12
topylithe policy is fine IMO11:12
topylielky: that's a completely different issue11:12
rwwtopyli: Would this be before or after we give them access to the bantracker that some of them have notable entries in? It's already after giving them access to the channel that some of their behavior outside of #lubuntu has been discussed in.11:12
rwwwhich was an action I also strongly disagreed with, and which I feel was made despite a shocking lack of communication with the IRC team11:13
elkythe policy is not at all fine if it would allow people who got to a project channel first, unrelatedly to the development team who earned the right to be official, automatic ops.11:13
topyliso what is your suggestion? get rid of the current lubuntu ops and install some that you like better? that doesn't seem doable, the project will likely change networks then11:15
rwwtopyli: No, my suggestion as I have told you already is to open applications for #lubuntu ops, have all current #lubuntu ops that want to continue to be #lubuntu ops go through it, have anyone else who wants #lubuntu ops go through it, and then set the access list to contain people who pass that process.11:15
AlanBellmy suggestion is to make them new core ops, on probation like all new core ops11:15
elkyif they're threatening to flounce to another network, i really don't want them as ops.11:15
AlanBellelky: I think that is speculation, not a threat by them11:16
jussiAlanBell: this is also my view.11:16
elkyAlanBell, except not. because there hasn't been the pre-selection process.11:16
topylirww: that is entirely possible and i might even support it11:16
LjLi don't think they should get a free pass.11:16
topyliAlanBell: it is speculation11:16
elkyplease don't speculate on that matter then, please. it's caused enough issues already in the discussion with them11:17
AlanBellok, so how to back-fill the preselection process11:17
rwwAlanBell: translate into English, please?11:17
elkyAlanBell, read what rww wrote above11:17
topyliwell if you hijack a project, get rid of their people and install yours, you're not going to have a happy ending11:18
elkyrww, he's asked for the idea you provided earlier11:18
jussitopyli: ++11:18
rwwtopyli: We're not hijacking a project. The project is asking to be managed by the IRC team, so they have to play by our rules.11:18
rwwIf they don't want to, they can feel free to not be a core channel.11:18
LjLtopyli: did someone order them to become a core project?11:18
elkyrww ++11:18
elkyin which case the policy is broken11:18
rwwIt'd be regrettable, but it's voluntary on their part as far as I know, and should be.11:18
topylirww: your idea about having the ops go through our normal process is pretty good11:19
elkyLjL, the core channels policy is.11:19
jussiThe lubuntu people in as far as I know are somewhat resistant to being managed by the ircc.11:19
elkyLjL, because it's broken.11:19
AlanBellsounds fine to me11:19
topyliLjL: of course not. not me anyway :)11:19
rwwjussi: If the Lubuntu people aren't sure about whether they want to be managed by IRCC, perhaps they should go figure that out and come back if they decide they do.11:19
=== bulldog98_ is now known as bulldog98
jussirww: there is no choice, if they are a official derivative, they come under the ircc, as they come under the cc, fc etc11:20
elkythis discussion is getting circular.11:20
LjLright but i don't suppose someone ordered them to be an official derivative either?11:20
oCeanfwiw, I'm all for rww's suggestion too11:20
rwwjussi: This is not my interpretation of the IRC Council's scope.11:20
topylithe CC has asked the IRCC to manage ubuntu channels, that's reality11:21
rwwGiven that official derivatives have left freenode before, I find it difficult to believe, too.11:21
rww(that all official derivatives are managed by IRCC automatically, that is)11:21
jussiheya head_victim11:21
topyliwell we can't manage channels on other networks, that's unrealistic11:21
head_victimAs a Lubuntu Op (a little inactive but still) I'd just like to say, I'm all for most of what you're proposing (not speaking on behalf of anyone but myself)11:22
topylirww: that's the current policy11:22
jussiIf there is an official derivative channel on freenode, then the ircc is the governing body.11:22
elkyhead_victim, for what who is proposing? there's two conflicting proposals here.11:22
head_victimEither the apply like others or probation, I can see merits in both.11:22
elkyhead_victim, there'll be probation as part of applying like others11:23
elkyall new ops get probation.11:23
rwwtopyli: This is incorrect. Addition or removal of channels from the core channel list is at the discretion of the IRCC.11:23
head_victimelky: and makes perfect sense.11:23
elkyhead_victim, i think so too11:23
jussiIm more than happy to have the lubuntu ops on probation, but I think we need to give all of them a chance.11:24
rwwtopyli: You appear to be conflating "managed" in the sense of core channels that are staffed by the IRC team and "managed" in the sense of functioning as group contacts and facilitating the wishes of relevant councils.11:24
elkyjussi, that is the critical issue we disagree on.11:24
head_victimI'd also like a little "welcome package" with some links to some reading to make sure I am doing my job properly.11:24
rwwjussi: I strongly disagree.11:24
topylirww: true, we can add channels. but removing channels that are support or development of an official derivative would be something i can't support11:24
elkyThere are several ops in the currentl #lubuntu ops list who I would never in a million years consider to be an op based on previous behaviour by them.11:25
LjLjussi: i'm quite strongly opposed to giving a chance to someone who's got many relevant bantracker entries, though. i don't know who these people are, but it goes against my every instinct.11:25
rwwjussi: I feel no need to give people that have demonstrated significant issues that disqualify them from opping our existing core channels a chance. Chances are earned, and they have not.11:25
elkyI can not and will not support troublesome people getting a shortcut on the ops process. We may as well just shortcut all the trolls as well.11:26
topylithat's just not a very useful comparison11:26
elkyif we shortcut anyone, we have to apply the same benefit to all11:26
elkyI refuse to apply the same benefit to anyone who wants to be an op11:27
elkyif we apply the shortcut to everyone, the worst will apply11:27
rwwIf someone applied for #ubuntu ops and had a history of being k-lined on multiple networks, or flagrant op abuse in #ubuntu* non-core channels, or a demonstrated inability to do simple channel operation despite repeated instruction, I would say exactly the same thing in email to IRCC as I have said in email to IRCC about this.11:28
topyliok so this seems to be the disagreement. we agree that there should be a call for #lubuntu ops and the current ops can apply to be ops, and they go through the normal probation etc. but we don't know whether or not the current ops should be auto-chosen11:28
elkytopyli, yes, i stated as much earlier.11:29
topyliyep, and i have been unable to convince you otherwise :)11:29
rwwAnd the ridiculous thing here is that you all know dang well that if some of the people on #lubuntu's access list applied for ops in any core channel they wouldn't get it.11:29
elkybecause i refuse to do what i see as being negligent.11:29
rwwI'm not sure if you're ignoring it because of politics or what, but it's a bit ridiculous that you are.11:30
oCeanthe "normal application process" and "auto chosen" are conflicting anyway, not?11:30
rwwoCean: yes11:30
topyliwe could simply merge the team with our team and be done with it. but i agree that the usual probation and mentoring would be useful11:31
elkyi should hope that the usual probation and mentoring would happen either way. if not, i don't have words to describe my opinion of your idea.11:32
oCeanI don't see why "auto chosen" (or "simply merge" is still an option, if there is going to be an application process anyway11:32
rwwoCean: because Lubuntu's leadership are unhappy that their choice of ops is being questioned, and leaning on IRCC to approve them all.11:33
elkyoCean, because some people want to skip the application process wholesale from my undertanding11:33
topyliso normal process without any automatic opping seems popular. we'll have to see what the lubuntu team thinks, if they can accept it or if we have to find another way to deal with the situation. i have to go, but that's my idea11:34
jussitopyli: I can support that11:34
oCeanrww, elky ok, I did not know/get that part11:34
topyliyou can action it to me, i'm off11:34
jussielky: ?11:35
elkyI'm not sure what i would be supporting there? It's seeming a little like a hostage situation.11:37
jussielky: its supporting your proposal if all parties support it.11:37
elkyjussi, I support that. The second part of what topyli says i don't.11:37
rwwIf Lubuntu doesn't like IRCC procedures and the CC has in fact mandated that #lubuntu become core (which I don't believe they have, personally), Lubuntu can get over it.11:37
rwwThey picked some crap ops, it's their fault this is happening in the first place.11:38
elkyrww I don't think the development team did much of the op picking actually.11:38
rwwIn the event that there is not in fact a mandate that #lubuntu become core, they can feel free to not be core.11:38
elkywhich means we're essentially dealing with 2 lubuntus11:38
rwwelky: then who did?11:38
elkyrww, at least one of the ops would have been self-chosen11:39
rwwelky: That is absurd.11:39
AlanBellso an existing good lubuntu op, from today could go through the whole process without being deopped at any stage11:39
elkyrww, then who started the channel?11:39
jussiAlanBell: yes11:39
rwwelky: whoever started Lubuntu, I would hope.11:39
rwwelky: anyway, it's immaterial. Regardless of who got on there themselves, #lubuntu's standards for granting ops are demonstrably flawed.11:40
rwwor, at least, flawed for #lubuntu-qua-core-channel. They may work fine for #lubuntu as it is.11:41
elkyi dont doubt it works fine for its existance right now. That's not the consequence at stake11:43
jussiright, I have a friend just arriving, I will action topyli to send an email to the lubuntu list informing them of the application process etc.11:43
elkyyou might as well end the meeting now, topyli is well gone i suspet11:43
jussi#action topyli Send informative email to #lubuntu ops list, with guidelines and application stuff11:43
meetingologyACTION: topyli Send informative email to #lubuntu ops list, with guidelines and application stuff11:43
=== meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Meetingology documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
meetingologyMeeting ended Sat Oct  8 11:44:09 2011 UTC.11:44
meetingologyMinutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-10-08-11.01.moin.txt11:44
rwwI note that we haven't addressed the disagreement between my POV and jussi's, which is whether existing #lubuntu ops should be automatically accepted by the application process.11:44
jussirww: yes we did11:44
rwwjussi: Ah. No automatic approval unless they don't like that in which case back to the drawing board?11:45
jussirww: well review and think how to proceed, talk more. (catalytic like ;))11:45
elkyrww, yes, that would be why i expressed hesitation11:46
rwwjussi: okays11:46
rwwjussi: I also think that at some point the lack of communication with the IRC team before adding #lubuntu people to #ubuntu-ops-team needs to be discussed.11:46
rwwjussi: because i think that you and topyli screwed up on that, personally.11:47
jussirww: fair enough, we can have a chat about that at some point - Im still in disagreeance with you there but thats me11:47
jussiright, friend is at door, laters.11:47
rwwI've said it before and I'll continue saying it until release, communication between IRCC and the ops team and the user base is dysfunctional, and it needs fixing.11:48
jussiIll do the tasks tomorrow11:48
rwwand probably within IRCC too, given that two of them aren't around most of the time11:48
rwwjussi: You presumably don't disagree that there was a lack of communication, since there obviously wasn't. Therefore I assume you disagree with my assertion that you not communicating with your team is a problem. I do not envy you defending that position.11:50
rwwanyway, it is 5am. I'm going to bed.11:51
Unit193rww: Quick PM question?11:51
rwwUnit193: if it's very quick11:51
=== bigbash is now known as zz_bigbash

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