[18:00]  * funkyHat wiggles
[18:00]  * Pici waggles
[18:00]  * h00k straggle
[18:00] <h00k> s.
[18:00]  * h00k sighs
[18:00]  * funkyHat signs
[18:01] <AlanBell> hi all
[18:01] <oCean> o/
[18:01]  * AlanBell is just making a coffee
[18:01] <AlanBell> will start in a sec
[18:01] <h00k> just poured a cup.
[18:02]  * oCean steals that cup
[18:02] <h00k> oCean: it was a cup of dog food for my dog. but okay.
[18:02] <oCean> :(
[18:02] <oCean> it smells
[18:03]  * AlanBell haz coffee
[18:03] <AlanBell> #startmeeting
[18:03] <meetingology> Meeting started Sun Feb 26 18:03:05 2012 UTC.  The chair is AlanBell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[18:03] <meetingology> Available 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 #votesrequired
[18:03] <AlanBell> hi all, who is here for the IRCC/IRC team meeting?
[18:03] <Silverlion> o/
[18:03] <Pici> Howdy!
[18:03] <h00k> hello
[18:03] <LjL> hi
[18:03] <Pici> Could someone paste the agenda? I don't have my email handy on this computer.
[18:03] <funkyHat> ô/
[18:03] <funkyHat> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:03] <Pici> Thanks
[18:04] <Myrtti> _o/
[18:04] <oCean> hey
[18:04] <AlanBell> ok, thanks for coming, lets get started then
[18:05] <AlanBell> #topic Review last meetings action items
[18:05] <AlanBell> hmm, sure there were some
[18:05] <bazhang> hi
[18:05] <AlanBell> there were
[18:06] <AlanBell> #progress AlanBell to sort out fridge calendar entries
[18:06] <AlanBell> not done yet, will sort it before the next meeting
[18:06] <AlanBell> #progress AlanBell to mail the list asking for help to add ban timeout removal to ubottu
[18:06] <AlanBell> done, I mailed the list proposing a bots hack day for the global jam weekend
[18:07] <AlanBell> #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker
[18:07] <AlanBell> well we didn't raise an item in the tracker, but we are dealing with one issue where a user has made a complaint about a ban
[18:08] <Silverlion> any details?
[18:08] <AlanBell> it would have been a lot simpler if they had just gone to the -ops channel to get it resolved, it was quite routine
[18:09] <h00k> Oh. was this the issue raised to me in a /query?
[18:09] <AlanBell> no, don't think so h00k
[18:10] <Pici> They went outside the resolution process so we've just been talking to the ops that dealt with the user first.
[18:10] <AlanBell> ok, lets move on to bugs
[18:10] <AlanBell> #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council
[18:10] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 788503 IRC Guidelines too #ubuntu centric - tsimpson
[18:11] <AlanBell> this is the one with a new draft here: http://notes.kde.org/ubuntuguidelines
[18:11] <AlanBell> they look pretty good to me, I think we need to wikify it and get it published
[18:12] <Pici> I think its making good progress myself
[18:12]  * h00k concurs
[18:12] <AlanBell> we might also review it a bit in light of the supporters guidelines that we were working on this week
[18:12] <AlanBell> would be nice to have them as a pair of documents that focus on different audiences
[18:13] <Pici> Agreed.
[18:13] <LjL> i think maybe we should put some of the more important factoids in the guidelines in addition, to me it seems sometimes the guidelines mention things that aren't an issue often, while those that are are relegated to factoids...
[18:13] <LjL> but that could easily turn into guideline-creep, so not sure
[18:15] <Pici> LjL: Do you have an example?
[18:15] <AlanBell> what would be a good next step on this, I want to do an #action item for it
[18:15] <LjL> Pici: well, for instance see !etiquette - the fact that we (well, i) felt the need to consolidate a few "good behavior" factoids into one comes close to a set of guidelines
[18:17]  * Silverlion agrees with LjL
[18:17] <LjL> Pici: maybe we should do it with method, i.e. grep and find which factoids are most often used, and if they're guideline-like factoids, include them
[18:18] <ikonia> a common sense review of the factoids DB in general may be in order
[18:18] <Pici> Sounds doable
[18:18] <ikonia> it's not been done for a while
[18:18] <ikonia> doing things like trying to link to official wiki pages etc
[18:18] <AlanBell> http://ubottu.com/factoids.cgi?db=ubuntu&search=&order=popularity%20DESC&page=0 popular factoids
[18:19] <h00k> oh look, how convenient
[18:19] <AlanBell> anyhow, next steps? is it ready to go on the wiki?
[18:20] <LjL> well it can't be ready, there are still some "FIXME's" in it
[18:20] <AlanBell> that doesn't mean it can't be edited still, just gets edits at a slower pace and people can subscribe to updates
[18:20] <Pici> I think we should send out the whole thing to the list to enourage edits.
[18:20] <AlanBell> sounds good
[18:20] <h00k> the whole thing wiki, or as-is in the...multi-user-editor that I can't remember the name of?
[18:21] <AlanBell> #action Pici to send mail to the list about the guidelines document to encourage edits and fixes to the FIXMEs
[18:21] <meetingology> ACTION: Pici to send mail to the list about the guidelines document to encourage edits and fixes to the FIXMEs
[18:21] <LjL> maybe it should be put on the wiki provisionally and an email sent out, that way it's probably easier to track changes than with the current "editpad"?=
[18:21] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 884671 Ubuntu IRC operator recruitment is slow and ungainly - jussi
[18:22] <Pici> h00k: whichever is more up-to-date.  I'd prefer to keep things on the wiki though, I like seeing edits as the come in.
[18:22] <AlanBell> yes, lets put it on the wiki then. Etherpad is good for fast uncontrolled edits and drafting things, the wiki is good for more controlled edits
[18:23] <h00k> etherpad. that's it.
[18:23] <AlanBell> ok, IRC recruitment, I did some scripty things to look at the queues
[18:26] <AlanBell> bother, can't find the pastebin link I did, will have to run it again later
[18:26]  * Silverlion pays attention now as a recruit
[18:26] <AlanBell> unless anyone can find it in -ops-team from last week
[18:26]  * h00k checks
[18:26] <AlanBell> anyhow, I listed everyone in the queues, and highligted those who are existing operators
[18:27] <AlanBell> most of the existing ops who are in a queue are lined up for #ubuntu-server
[18:27] <AlanBell> I think we should just process all existing core ops applications for additional channels
[18:27] <Pici> I thought we processed that queue already?
[18:27] <funkyHat> http://paste.ubuntu.com/847836/
[18:27] <h00k> AlanBell: http://paste.ubuntu.com/847836/
[18:28] <h00k> d'aw. funkyHat wins.
[18:28]  * funkyHat does a dance
[18:28] <AlanBell> thats the one I was looking for, thanks
[18:28] <Myrtti> hold on, how do I read that
[18:28] <h00k>  My method not so efficient. cat, grep > alan, cat grep paste, review.
[18:29] <AlanBell> so **** Team **** channel name marks a new channel, those under it are in the pending queue
[18:29] <Pici> Myrtti: If theres a !! in front of your nick then you're already an op somewhere.
[18:29] <AlanBell> !! marks someone already a member of an ops team somewhere
[18:29] <AlanBell> silly ubottu
[18:29] <Myrtti> ah alright
[18:30] <Pici> I don't have any issues approving people who are already an op somewhere.
[18:30] <Pici> They're already vetted imo.
[18:30] <Myrtti> got me worried there for a few minutes, there's some nicks on those lists that I'd be worried about
[18:30] <Myrtti> nice way to raise my heartrate :-P
[18:31] <AlanBell> Myrtti: yeah, I am just proposing we do the !! ones without further delay
[18:32] <AlanBell> the rest I think we should do in batches to line up with training
[18:32] <Pici> Shall we vote on it?
[18:32] <AlanBell> yeah, lets
[18:32] <AlanBell> #voters AlanBell Pici funkyHat
[18:32] <meetingology> Current voters: AlanBell Pici funkyHat
[18:33] <funkyHat> +1
[18:33] <AlanBell> #vote channel op applications from existing operators should be processed as and when they are received and the existing applications should be processed without further delay
[18:33] <meetingology> Please vote on: channel op applications from existing operators should be processed as and when they are received and the existing applications should be processed without further delay
[18:33] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[18:33] <AlanBell> +1
[18:33] <meetingology> +1 received from AlanBell
[18:33] <funkyHat> Oops
[18:33] <funkyHat> +1
[18:33] <meetingology> +1 received from funkyHat
[18:33] <Pici> +1
[18:33] <meetingology> +1 received from Pici
[18:33] <AlanBell> you are just too fast today funkyHat
[18:33] <AlanBell> #endvote
[18:33] <meetingology> Voting ended on: channel op applications from existing operators should be processed as and when they are received and the existing applications should be processed without further delay
[18:33] <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[18:33] <meetingology> Motion carried
[18:33] <funkyHat> hehe
[18:33] <h00k> that was a close one.
[18:33] <AlanBell> :)
[18:33] <Pici> :P
[18:34] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 892500 eir is still not fit for purpose in #ubuntu -ikonia
[18:34]  * Myrtti rubs her hands
[18:34] <AlanBell> yeah, we will be addressing that on the bot-jam day
[18:34] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 913541 there are a number of people with Ubuntu IRC cloaks who have expired from the ubuntumembers group - AlanBell
[18:34] <Pici> mmm... robot jam
[18:34] <AlanBell> I have not done any more on this
[18:34] <Pici> I think some launchpad scripting could show us this quickly.
[18:35] <AlanBell> Pici: funkyHat: got some time to work on this?
[18:35] <Pici> Actually, I think someone might already have a script.
[18:35] <AlanBell> Pici: yes, we have the list
[18:35] <Pici> AlanBell: I'll take it.
[18:35] <AlanBell> #action Pici to work on the list of expired members
[18:35] <meetingology> ACTION: Pici to work on the list of expired members
[18:35] <Pici> We just need someone to go throug it with a staffer?
[18:35] <LjL> Pici: too late, you've got it now
[18:35] <funkyHat> :D
[18:36] <Pici> s/someone/me/
[18:36] <AlanBell> yeah, I did a few, you have to try to contact them, then get an unaffiliated cloak, or do a membership renewal as appropriate
[18:36] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 916247 devel wiki on ubottu.com needs some attention - AlanBell
[18:37] <AlanBell> this was despammed and locked down, we were going to transfer some of the content and close the wiki, just keeping the bug open whilst that happens, but it isn't a high priority
[18:37] <AlanBell> ok, that is the end of the bugs
[18:38] <AlanBell> #topic Why would we allow recommending PPA's in a support channel? Background - oCean
[18:38] <AlanBell> ok, oCean, you have the floor
[18:38] <oCean> Right, I already started at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[18:39] <oCean> In addition: I would prefer we would stop recommending PPA's altogether, instead of saying "recommend software sources in a logical order" as seen in the recent Supporters Guide
[18:39] <AlanBell> I like the idea of a ratings system for PPAs
[18:39] <oCean> Or we would still have these ambivalent situation where factoids and guides claim PPA's are not officially supported, but one can still go ahead, use any PPA, wreck their system, and use good time from helpers in the channels to get the PPA issues sorted
[18:39] <Pici> Me too
[18:40] <LjL> I really don't think we should put a blanket ban on PPAs. They are an important part of the ecosystem, and additionally, just like it's always been ok to suggest, say, compiling something from source - BUT ONLY AFTER pointing out its availability in repositories, if any, and ONLY WHILE giving appropriate disclaimers - I think it should be ok to suggest a PPA. It's bad to just "randomly recommend" a PPA, but that's another story. I don't think we should
[18:40] <LjL> be conflating the two.
[18:40] <tsimpson> some PPAs are supported, and #kubuntu will definitely still recommend some PPAs
[18:40] <popey> I find it disappointing that PPAs are rejected en-masse and words like "wrecked" are being used about them
[18:40] <Pici> LjL: +1
[18:41] <oCean> popey: are you in #ubuntu a lot?
[18:41] <popey> LjL: +1
[18:41] <funkyHat> +1
[18:41] <Silverlion> afk for short
[18:41] <popey> oCean: what bearing does that have on the question?
[18:41] <oCean> popey: then you would notice that a large number of PPA's do wreck people's systems
[18:41] <oCean> it's not something I just came up with
[18:42] <Pici> Lets not make the mistake of saying that "since there are some bad PPAs that all PPAs are bad"
[18:42] <popey> there are many PPAs that are not problematic
[18:42] <oCean> Pici, there are >10,000 active PPA's
[18:42] <h00k> It's true, PPAs can be very bad(tm), but there are some good PPAs that aren't problematic
[18:42] <popey> many PPAs which are in fact maintained by the upstream developers, like unity for example
[18:42] <bazhang> including the link to the PPA for gnome3 with the fact that a reinstall is the only way to fix was not a good idea
[18:43] <Myrtti> I very rarely use PPA's and it is impossible for me to know which PPA's are problematic and which are not. Even if upstream developers maintain them, they may not be well versed with packaging for Ubuntu...
[18:43] <popey> alan@deep-thought:/etc/apt/sources.list.d$ ls -l *.list | wc -l
[18:43] <Myrtti> I just really, really hope that the rating system suggested by popeys bug is implemented soon
[18:43] <LjL> oCean, it's always possible for a helper to refuse helping someone if they feel they're wasting their time while doing that. I rather think we've been too strict with the "not supported" lately; even if a user "wrecked" their system by doing something unsupported, does that really entitle us to actively stop people from helping with that?
[18:43] <popey> 17
[18:43] <popey> some of us use PPAs a lot and they dont break at all
[18:44] <Pici> popey: Those present are hardly a representative group of Ubuntu users.
[18:44] <Myrtti> popey: you know yourself WFM isn't a valid answer...
[18:44] <popey> i was merely pointing out a counter position
[18:44] <popey> based on some evidence of a long time ubuntu user
[18:44] <oCean> LjL: I know, sure I want to help them too, but I'd rather have them not install the PPA's at all
[18:45] <oCean> Please realize that PPA's are suggested _all the time_
[18:45] <bazhang> hourly
[18:45] <oCean> little under 1000 mentions of PPA's in the last 3 months for #u alone
[18:45] <bazhang> and webupd8 is the top o the list
[18:45] <oCean> that's without ubottu's explaining what ppa is
[18:45] <Pici> I think we need to remind folks that PPAs don't receive the same amount of testing that packages in the repositories do.
[18:45] <h00k> oh, that place :(
[18:45] <LjL> oCean: the root of the problem is that the official repositories contain 30000 packages. That's a lot, but it's hardly enough for a lot of users. Some users simply need/want packages that aren't there. Are we going to instantly mark a system as "not supported" as soon as something not from the official repositories is installed? Isn't that a very "app store" mentality?
[18:46] <LjL> Pici: we need to do that, and we need to point it out to helpers who neglect to mention that.
[18:46] <LjL> Pici: but that's a long shot from *banning* them.
[18:46] <LjL> (the PPAs, not the users)
[18:46] <Pici> LjL: Agreed. A blanket ban on PPAs isn't going to a) work, or b) be followed
[18:46] <bazhang> PPA have effectively turned Ubuntu into a rolling release distro
[18:46] <oCean> LjL: I realize that, and of course I use PPA's myself. But there is a difference, because I know how to use them, judge them etc
[18:47] <AlanBell> lets review a few factoids
[18:47] <AlanBell> !ppa
[18:47] <AlanBell> !ppa-purge
[18:47] <h00k> for reference,
[18:47] <popey> oCean: so teach people who to use them and judge them, rather than use them yourself and reject the use for others
[18:47] <popey> thats a very elitest attitude to have
[18:47] <h00k> oh, never mind, AlanBell beat me.
[18:48] <Pici> I heartily agree with popey and LjL here.
[18:48] <Myrtti> I just wish 11.04 would go EOL quicker
[18:48] <h00k> ^ this
[18:48] <bazhang> no!
[18:48] <AlanBell> why 11.04?
[18:48] <oCean> Pici: that would still leave us with the ambivalence of saying "is not supported", but you can do what you like and ask for help again
[18:48] <funkyHat> Buggy unity?
[18:49] <h00k> Unity there is  :(
[18:49] <Myrtti> because either people install it to use Gnome2, or then they use a PPA to install Gnome3 on it, and it breaks.
[18:49] <LjL> oCean: well, there are various levels of "not supported", and just making it black and white is simply impossible
[18:49] <LjL> oCean: Backports is an official thing, yet it's less supported than the main repos, for instance.
[18:49] <Myrtti> either way it's the fall-between-cracks version that is infinite source of pain
[18:50] <Pici> oCean: And? For the majority of people who use PPAs, the PPA that they've used isn't the issue that they've come to #ubuntu to have solved.
[18:50] <oCean> LjL: ok, I understand not everything is black and white, so we have to be more explicit in what the levels of support mean
[18:50] <AlanBell> well this is what I mean about pointing to upgrades in a sensible order, if you are running 11.04 then upgrading through the release numbers is better than a mass of hybrid backports from PPAs
[18:50] <bazhang> PPA are an important issue, and agreeing to help fix issues with / related to them
[18:51] <bazhang> get it on webupd8, and it's part of the Ubuntu rolling release
[18:51] <Myrtti> I don't have problems helping people who have PPA's. But if problems are caused by PPA stuff or there's explicit problem with stuff from PPA, then it gets hairy
[18:52] <bazhang> so what if Mintmenu is part of the PPA
[18:52] <popey> From a personal perspective some of the work my team does at Canonical is put into PPAs. I'd be kinda annoyed if #ubuntu refuses to allow users to discover that work, by banning the primary method my team has to deliver it.
[18:52] <LjL> oCean: you have to rely on people's common sense a little. People can and will start recommending to do thing the "reasonable" way if we actively point out the issues when we encounter them in the channel. Ops are not just there to ban people, they're also there to give the channel a direction, and that not only by means of guidelines and meetings, but also by means of what they say in the channel day-to-day.
[18:52] <tsimpson> PPAs are not the only thing that cause those problems, any non-Canonical repository could. should be ban anything that isn't 100% official (as defined by Canonical)?
[18:52] <tsimpson> I don't see a solution, other than simply educating users
[18:53] <Pici> Educating our helpers will go a long way in getting people to understand the risks of PPAs and benefits of PPAs.
[18:53] <tsimpson> maybe someone messes things up, and they need to reinstall. we help them backup their data and get a working system again. they gain experience
[18:53] <bazhang> relying on common sense when some users will not even read the channel topic
[18:54] <oCean> bazhang: +1
[18:54] <LjL> bazhang, oCean: if users are all idiots, then we might as well give up.
[18:54] <LjL> I thought the idea why we're still here is that we think they aren't.
[18:54] <oCean> LjL: no, but we might try our best to limit them in the possiblities to ruin their systems
[18:54] <AlanBell> I kind of favour providing more information for people to make decisions about what they do with their systems
[18:54] <bazhang> I have no problem with Ubuntu being a rolling release distro, buts let be honest, thats what the floodgate of PPA is doing
[18:54] <oCean> That's why the rmrf command is an alias, right?
[18:55] <Pici> Again, its not the users we need to convince, its our helpers.  The people who are there every day are the best people to educate about this sort of thing.  They'll do all the legwork when it comes to telling the users who can't manage to read our channel topic.
[18:55] <popey> i disagree with bazhangs assertion
[18:55] <bazhang> that did not highlight me
[18:55] <oCean> Pici: yes, but there are many "drive-by" helpers
[18:55] <popey> there's a chasm between ubuntu plus a bunch of PPAs, and a rolling distro
[18:55] <LjL> oCean: but that command being an alias doesn't really stop them from doing on their systems what they need. Likewise, "sudo" instead of root doesn't, because they can do everything with "sudo". They simply CAN'T do everything by ONLY using the official repositories.
[18:55] <tsimpson> it's not our place to decide what "users" should and should not be able to do with their system. we can warn, inform, and educate. but we can't tie their hand and stop them from doing what they choose to do
[18:56] <LjL> oCean: and there are many regular helpers and ops who will correct them.
[18:56] <bazhang> there's a new kernel, I'm on Lucid, I want it
[18:56] <AlanBell> ok, I wonder if we are going round in circles at this point, perhaps we should draw this topic to a close
[18:56] <oCean> LjL: yes, sure. But would an explicit statement, more then just "not supported" be valuable?
[18:56] <bazhang> et voila there is a PPA for it
[18:57] <funkyHat> oCean: how is drive by helpers suggesting bad PPAs going to be stopped by banning suggesting PPAs?
[18:57] <oCean> So, if we're not about to say "don't use PPA's" we definitely need to be more explicit with that
[18:57] <Pici> bazhang: And I'm sure that we'll all tell you that you're probably going to have issues with it, but you're going to install it anyway.
[18:57] <LjL> oCean: no, as it would completely destroy the possibility for experienced helpers to suggest reasonable PPAs when appropriate.
[18:57] <oCean> funkyHat: because then we would have means to tell them "please don't suggest ppa's"
[18:57] <bazhang> LjL, please explain where the reasonable PPA are
[18:58] <phillw> there are some times when adding a PPA for a specific problem is warranted
[18:58] <oCean> LjL: yes, that's true, that's what happens when one uses Ubuntu. Not everything is in the repositories
[18:58] <LjL> oCean: you can still tell them "please don't suggest PPAs without first having informed them about the software availability in the repositories, and without giving the due disclaimers about PPAs not being part of Ubuntu"
[18:58] <bazhang> they all look good to me. and some are very very tempting to install to be honest
[18:58] <LjL> you could always do that, it's always been done, with all things, even before PPAs existed
[18:58] <oCean> Root cause might be that the ubuntu distribution does not provide everything a users wishes. Too bad
[18:58] <AlanBell> #vote set a new policy to ask helpers to not recommend PPAs in #ubuntu
[18:58] <meetingology> Please vote on: set a new policy to ask helpers to not recommend PPAs in #ubuntu
[18:58] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[18:58] <AlanBell> -1
[18:58] <meetingology> -1 received from AlanBell
[18:59] <funkyHat> -1
[18:59] <meetingology> -1 received from funkyHat
[18:59] <Pici> -1
[18:59] <meetingology> -1 received from Pici
[18:59] <AlanBell> #endvote
[18:59] <meetingology> Voting ended on: set a new policy to ask helpers to not recommend PPAs in #ubuntu
[18:59] <meetingology> Votes for:0 Votes against:3 Abstentions:0
[18:59] <meetingology> Motion denied
[18:59] <Pici> PPAs are more accountable than random source packages out there as well.
[18:59] <AlanBell> ok, I think we should focus on providing more information about the types of PPA out there
[18:59] <Myrtti> you could have just vetoed on Snowball
[19:00] <bazhang> that would be great. how to rate them
[19:00] <popey> Do we have any stats for which PPAs are "bad" from #u experience?
[19:00] <oCean> All 11.000 of 'em :(
[19:00] <bazhang> hehe
[19:00] <bazhang> 10999 (handbrake is ok)
[19:01] <AlanBell> #topic Support in -offtopic? Background - oCean
[19:01] <oCean> Also on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
[19:01] <funkyHat> I seem to recall discussions about ppa ratings at least a year ago either on -devel@ or one of the launchpad lists... I wonder if there is progress
[19:01] <oCean> This is an other matter we discussed in -ops or -team, but I don't think there was consensus
[19:01] <AlanBell> yeah, and I have a mail from Mark that relates to this a little
[19:02] <AlanBell> so yesterday we discussed a separate topic of canonical sending people to #ubuntu to discuss the android hybrid thing
[19:02] <AlanBell> that is going to be addressed, but one of the things from sabdfl's response was . . .
[19:03] <AlanBell>  * if there is a better IRC channel for general "hello, I'm interested in X with Ubuntu, where should I go?", then let me know and I'll update the team to use that for the cases where they do judge the audience to be developer or at least highly technical in nature.
[19:03] <AlanBell> is #ubuntu-offtopic that place?
[19:03] <Pici> no.
[19:03] <Pici> Or at least not in -offtopic's current state.
[19:03] <bazhang> #ubuntu-phone ?
[19:03] <AlanBell> I didn't think so either, is there a place for it?
[19:03] <Myrtti> bazhang: not really
[19:03] <Tm_T> bazhang: that's not general channel (:
[19:04] <Tm_T> AlanBell: -irc?
[19:04] <Myrtti> no
[19:04] <Pici> no
[19:04] <AlanBell> bazhang: it is plausibly a reasonable place for it in this specific instance, but Mark was asking in general terms
[19:04] <Tm_T> shortly put, we currently don't have such place
[19:04] <bazhang> AlanBell, ok
[19:05] <Pici> I don't think we currently have a place, and if we want to, we need the participation of our developers to make it work.
[19:05] <ikonia> sorry - but what is the point of sending people to a channel with no info ?
[19:05] <Tm_T> ikonia: a very good point
[19:05] <LjL> Pici: yes, sabdfl can't just expect us to come up with places to discuss things nobody knows about out of a hat
[19:05] <ikonia> "hi I'm interested" - ok "sit there in this dead channel...."
[19:05] <ikonia> why not ask people to subscibe to an announce mail list so they get news when there is news
[19:05] <Myrtti> ikonia: zombie channel is more to the point
[19:05] <Myrtti> or undead
[19:06] <Pici> ikonia: People want to interact and ask questions.
[19:06] <Myrtti> it's worse than dead, it's just users pingponging questions and rumours around, possibly making things worse than if there were no such discussion at all
[19:06] <ikonia> but there is no answer
[19:06] <ikonia> Hi, tell me more about this product"
[19:06] <ikonia> There is nothing to tell
[19:06] <ikonia> why can't we say "there is nothing to tell at this time, subscribe to the accounce mailing list"
[19:06] <ikonia> why point people to a channel full of nothing
[19:07] <Pici> Again, we would need the people in-the-know to be present before we could tell users to go there.
[19:07] <AlanBell> well they are going to stop doing that
[19:07] <Pici> Unless the tech board (or whatever) wants us to start funneling into -devel to ask questions, I don't see another way of fixing this.
[19:07] <Tm_T> "if there is a better IRC channel for general "hello, I'm interested in X with Ubuntu, where should I go?", then let me know"
[19:08] <Pici> and I dont want to point people to -devel
[19:08] <AlanBell> in fact, this wasn't really a private email, you might as well see all of it
[19:08] <Tm_T> that is question we can figure out an answer
[19:08] <AlanBell> -devel don't know about it either
[19:08] <AlanBell> http://paste.ubuntu.com/858209/
[19:08] <ikonia> just feed back to canonical "IRC is useless without information, I suggest setting up a mailing list for people to subscrive to so you can make an annoucment when you have something to announce"
[19:08] <AlanBell> ikonia: I did, basically
[19:08] <Tm_T> so let's keep "discussion of nonexistant products" issue separate from general place-to-go channel issue
[19:09] <LjL> I have to go now. I just wanted to say about #ubuntu-offtopic that I don't think we should have a "no support" policy because EVEN WITHOUT having such a policy yet, I've already seen people going to extremes by shutting discussions down as they were remotely support-like. #ubuntu-offtopic shouldn't discourage talking about Ubuntu. Instead, let the people there NICELY suggest "have you tried asking in #ubuntu?", let's enforce a stricter "no repeating"
[19:09] <LjL> rule than in #ubuntu, and let's not allow banned people to obtain support in #ubuntu-offtopic.
[19:09] <h00k> ^ I concur with this
[19:09] <AlanBell> yeah, I agree with not supporting banned people, certainly
[19:09] <Pici> Agreed.
[19:09] <ikonia> AlanBell and the response i better than I understood when you mentioned it, so thank you
[19:10] <Pici> I don't think I understand what you just said ikonia, but okay ;)
[19:10] <AlanBell> I think #ubuntu-offtopic should be the place for discussion about ubuntu that isn't support, or we should have #ubuntu-discuss or #ubuntu-chat or something for that
[19:10] <ikonia> Pici: it was in relation to the android email
[19:10] <ikonia> AlanBell: I've aksed for this many times and it's just a non-starter
[19:11] <AlanBell> why?
[19:12] <Myrtti> I've grown to dislike -offtopic as a channel name
[19:12] <ikonia> AlanBell: people want -offtopic to be random stuff
[19:12] <ikonia> to do what ever you feel like saying inside the !o4o and !coc guidelines
[19:13] <Tm_T> that's what "offtopic" means?
[19:13] <ikonia> I wanted to bring the offtopic channels together and have a bit of community discussion around ubuntu as a project
[19:13] <ikonia> technical/non-technical, just "stuff"
[19:13] <Pici> As much as the channel sometimes annoys me, I think that -offtopic is fine and another Ubuntu-centric discussion channel would be better.
[19:13] <Silverlion> folks: wouldn't it be better to have just ONE Offtopic chan?
[19:13] <ikonia> rather than having 4 - 5 offtopic channels of people just saying words
[19:13] <Silverlion> like the community cafe on the forums?
[19:13] <Pici> Silverlion: IRC can't be separated into threads like forums can.
[19:14] <Pici> Not without creating separate channels
[19:14] <h00k> #ubuntu-ubuntu-discussion, #ubuntu-what-you-had-for-lunch, #ubuntu-break-from-support,
[19:14] <h00k> :(
[19:14] <funkyHat> People like their spaces, and having more than one offtopic channel doesn't seem to be hurting
[19:14] <Tm_T> Silverlion: one?
[19:14] <bazhang> h00k, heh
[19:14] <Myrtti> or going to the other direction - #x-ot, #k-ot, #u-ot, #l-ot
[19:14] <Myrtti> should there be ONE CHAN TO RULE THEM ALL?
[19:14] <Myrtti> :-P
[19:14] <tsimpson> the point of offtopic is that it's not one topic, it's the exception to the "an IRC channel has a specific topic" rule
[19:15] <Silverlion> Tm_T: i wanted to "melt" the -offtopic chans together and name it "community cafe"
[19:15] <Pici> tsimpson: good point.
[19:15] <ikonia> funkyHat: it's also not building anything, there are people spread out in each channel that are "quality" yet there have little to say mixed in with people just saying radonom stuff
[19:15] <ikonia> tsimpson: there should be tons of topics, fully agree
[19:16] <AlanBell> ok, some interesting suggestions there, but I think we are not going to make any decisions on this today
[19:16] <h00k> It's nice to have a place to talk about $stuff, and not $ubuntu-stuff all the time,
[19:16] <Silverlion> that way we do have a better overview and can create some community feeling
[19:16] <Pici> h00k: +10
[19:16] <h00k> which is nice to take a break from #ubuntu in there, but also included are people who don't help
[19:16] <Tm_T> Silverlion: not going to happen, it's been considered for years, and see where we are (:
[19:16] <phillw> the -ot channels are already the cafe for each group?
[19:16] <Pici> Silverlion: I've suggested that before, it didn't go over well. (although that was a lonjg time ago)
[19:17]  * popey returns to see #ubuntu-phone stuff
[19:17] <pangolin> I don't see why -offtopic can't have multiple topics going on at the same time. Just like in #ubuntu where you don't answer every questions asked.
[19:17]  * popey would like to help fix the issues there. Suggestions welcome.
[19:17] <AlanBell> popey: get the people who know what they are talking about to engage with the channel
[19:18] <popey> well.
[19:18] <AlanBell> yeah, I know that might not be possible
[19:19] <popey> the problem there is that #ubuntu-phone was never supposed to be for the current announced convergence device
[19:19] <tsimpson> we do have a (dead) #ubuntu-mobile going unused
[19:19] <popey> it was meant for discussion of a phone running ubuntu
[19:19] <AlanBell> yes, we do appreciate that
[19:19] <popey> not the converged device that you've been talking about
[19:19] <Silverlion> do we need to channels to discuss topics that should be discussed here?
[19:19] <popey> so directing people there means they dont actually get to talk to the 'right people'
[19:19] <AlanBell> popey: did you see the email that is going out to people who register an interest in the hybrid thing?
[19:20] <popey> i only saw your pastebin above
[19:20] <Myrtti> popey: but it was the best channel for example I could think out quickly when people started asking about "where can I discuss"
[19:20] <popey> Myrtti: sure, i appreciate that
[19:20] <h00k> so, before I forget, where are we with -offtopic?
[19:20] <AlanBell> popey: http://paste.ubuntu.com/858223/
[19:21] <popey> ok, and mark has said that will be fixed?
[19:21] <AlanBell> popey: yes, I brought it up here because mark was asking about a general channel to send people to for discussions
[19:21] <Pici> popey: Since you're more on the developer side of things for this, would you prefer users/power users/non-ubuntu developers dropping in on a team channel (like -devel, -kernel -x, whathaveyou) or a separate technically focussed discussion channel?
[19:22] <Pici> Purely for asking questions about new ubuntu tech, not tech support.
[19:22] <popey> well, i setup -phone, -tablet and -tv for exactly that kind of thing
[19:23] <oCean> h00k: :) Yeah, I raised two points: 1) don't shut down support questions, just suggest a regular support chan might be more appropriate 2) don't support banned users in -ot
[19:23] <popey> I'm happy for people to ping me in those channels if there are questions that have not been answered
[19:23] <popey> and would like to help create a FAQ for each to help direct people to the 'right' answers
[19:23] <popey> would that help?
[19:23] <AlanBell> it would, yes
[19:24] <Pici> popey: And if those channels already have developers who are willing to answer user questions present, then I think we just need to work out a way to publicize those channels.
[19:24] <popey> they do
[19:24] <h00k> also, operators there?
[19:24] <popey> -tv has had lots of discussion with the guys who actually wrote it
[19:24] <Pici> I think we sorted out some of the op stuff the other day.
[19:25] <h00k> cool.
[19:26] <AlanBell> ok, lets deal with the specific points oCean raised in this topic
[19:26] <AlanBell> 1) don't shut down support questions, just suggest a regular support chan might be more appropriate
[19:27] <oCean>  just suggest *that*
[19:27] <AlanBell> 2) don't support banned users in -ot (which is a sensible exception/enhancement to #1)
[19:27] <bazhang> including crossposting?
[19:27] <oCean> bazhang: crossposting should be avoided
[19:28] <bazhang> I post in #ubuntu , wait 2 mins, then to -ot
[19:28] <Pici> I think the only time where it is reasonable for support to be answered in -ot is when a user casually mentions some annoyance and someone has an idea to fix it.
[19:29] <bazhang> there are often jokey answers when support is asked in -ot
[19:29] <tsimpson> well "support" is such a wide subject that it's difficult to simply say "no support questions"
[19:29] <AlanBell> I am struggling to figure out what change is being requested here, it seems like a request for a common sense approach
[19:30] <Tm_T> AlanBell: that, there's currently no common sense applied consistently as far as I can see
[19:30] <Tm_T> "no support" is slapped hardhandedly occasionally
[19:30] <oCean> there is actually support in -ot, for example on subjects which are offtopic for #u, but as soon as someone asks an ubuntu question, we jump on him saying "don't ask support here"
[19:31] <Tm_T> oCean: yeah, soft redirect is better approach when its reasonable in the first place
[19:31] <oCean> I'll say after LjL "let the people there NICELY suggest "have you tried asking in #ubuntu?", let's enforce a stricter "no repeating"
[19:31] <AlanBell> maybe this should be something added to the supporters guide, what to do if someone asks a question in the wrong channel
[19:32] <ikonia> oCean but there also has to be common sense the other way
[19:32] <ikonia> oCean: users like bullgard who just don't want to play by the rules use -offtopic as #ubuntu
[19:33] <ikonia> I have no issue with support discussion in #ubuntu-offtopic, it would be a welcome uplift from random stuff
[19:33] <phillw> whilst we are the new kids on the block, maybe some thing like Welcome to the general chat area | Please use #lubuntu for support | ?
[19:33] <ikonia> but I think if we have a support channel, guiding users to it for support is the better option for proper "I need help" issues
[19:33] <oCean> ikonia: true. We should be stricter, especially with such users
[19:33] <AlanBell> oCean: perhaps you could add some bits to the guide advising helpers how to deal with support requests in offtopic channels
[19:33] <ikonia> oCean: a better balance to actually help support discussion, while "questions" or specific issues can be guided to the support channel
[19:34] <oCean> AlanBell: fine with me
[19:34] <AlanBell> are there any factoids that might need changing?
[19:34] <Myrtti> 90 minutes mark btw
[19:34] <Tm_T> Myrtti: halfway then (:
[19:34] <ikonia> what's the point of having a support channel to use offtopic and an offtopic channel to not do support, to be asked support questions
[19:34] <AlanBell> #action oCean to edit the guide to add advice on support questions in -offtopic
[19:34] <meetingology> ACTION: oCean to edit the guide to add advice on support questions in -offtopic
[19:34] <AlanBell> Myrtti: yes, I am aware, the last bits won't take long at all
[19:34] <Myrtti> AlanBell: I know you are aware, just reminding others ;-)
[19:35] <AlanBell> ok, next item we have already addressed
[19:35] <tsimpson> hmm, actually there probably should be a "Support questions in #ubuntu" in the -ot topic
[19:35] <AlanBell> #topic Ops applications from existing ops - Alan Bell
[19:35] <tsimpson> I though it was there, but apparently not
[19:35] <AlanBell> we are going to deal with that, moving straight on
[19:35] <AlanBell> #topic Supporters Guide document - Alan Bell
[19:35] <ikonia> tsimpson: I'll fix now
[19:35] <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/SupportersGuide
[19:36] <AlanBell> we put this together this week, still accepting edits and improvements, an email went to the list about it
[19:36] <phillw> an excellent resource. thanks for making it.
[19:36] <oCean> ikonia, tsimpson we might consider the wording, since "support in #u" does shut down the possibility for a question in -ot
[19:36] <AlanBell> I think a factoid pointing at it would be a good idea, we can try and come up with one later (not right now)
[19:36] <LjL> yeah
[19:36] <LjL> the #ubuntu-offtopic topic already had "non-support" in it
[19:37] <LjL> why the need for this stronger wording
[19:37] <ikonia> oCean: check topic now
[19:37] <LjL> when many are saying here we should have all BUT a stronger thing against support there
[19:37] <AlanBell> and we should probably blog about the supporters guide so planet readers see it (yes jussi, I know)
[19:37] <oCean> ikonia: I saw it, fine with me now
[19:37] <AlanBell> thanks ikonia :)
[19:37] <ikonia> LjL: hopefully nothing too harsh in there now, just a little more clarify ?
[19:37] <AlanBell> ok, thats all I want to say on the supporters guide for now
[19:38] <ikonia> clarity even
[19:38] <AlanBell> #topic Any Other Business
[19:38] <LjL> Whatever
[19:38] <AlanBell> does anyone have any other burning topics (I know we are over time)
[19:38] <Myrtti> I'm still writing the ops guide...
[19:38] <Myrtti> brain turns into mush.
[19:38] <Tm_T> I had something in mind, but as usual, have forgotten it already /:
[19:38] <Pici> I think we'll need to go back and discuss some of these other issues at a later time, but that was rather obvious anyway.
[19:38] <AlanBell> Myrtti: can we decide a date (I don't want you spending too much time on it)
[19:38] <LjL> ikonia: so now let's expect some people to say "NO GO AWAY SUPPORT IN #ubuntu" even louder than before.
[19:38] <ikonia> LjL: hopefully not
[19:39] <LjL> *shrug*
[19:39] <Pici> We'll face that when we see it.
[19:39] <Tm_T> LjL: "support questions might be better served in #u" ...lenghty one but softer tone /:
[19:39] <Myrtti> AlanBell: you're allowed to kick me about it on Wednesday, if I'm not done by then, I give up and let someone else continue on writing it.
[19:39] <Myrtti> it's in Etherpad and I'll toss the link around for a selected few then
[19:40] <Myrtti> either way
[19:40] <AlanBell> can't possibly kick you, but will tickle you on wednesday :)
[19:40] <Tm_T> Myrtti: let me know if you need any help
[19:40] <AlanBell> ok, any more . . .
[19:40] <Myrtti> Tm_T: you I might poke with the URL in the next half hour
[19:41] <Tm_T> (:)
[19:41] <AlanBell> next meeting will be on a week day evening in a couple of weeks
[19:41] <AlanBell> #endmeeting
[19:41] <meetingology> Meeting ended Sun Feb 26 19:41:15 2012 UTC.
[19:41] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-02-26-18.03.moin.txt
[19:41] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-02-26-18.03.html
[19:41] <AlanBell> thanks all, sorry it was a bit long :)
[19:41] <phillw> Thanks for chairing AlanBell
[19:41] <ikonia> I'd rather it was long for an actual discussion that cutting things off
[19:42] <phillw> ikonia: +1
[19:42] <funkyHat> Thanks everyone
[19:44] <Silverlion> thx Alan