[01:18] <tjiggi_fo> anyone here?
[01:19] <Silverlion> tjiggi_fo: affirmative
[01:19] <tjiggi_fo> read this: http://pastebin.com/kcJMVaE3 and tell tsimpson to read it too
[01:34] <phillw> Silverlion: the one from tjiggi_fo ?
[01:34] <Silverlion> phillw: affirmative
[01:40] <phillw> Silverlion: I got bored... If someone would tell me what the infraction is? As it was reported from -ot and being asked to be on there, what is the issue?
[01:41] <Silverlion> phillw: i have not a single clue ... just got the link from tjiggi_fo
[01:41] <Silverlion> with the request to pass it to tsimpsion
[01:42] <phillw> let them sort it out. I do not touch -ot areas unless there is a clear breach of freenode regs.
[01:42] <phillw> I treat -ot as an ## area
[04:52] <bazhang> gassypoots clearly has no interest in being helped
[12:51] <theadmin> Get rid of crizzy please, saying Windows is better than Linux in an Ubuntu channel is unacceptable
[13:02] <oCean> ehrm...
[13:42] <topyli> phillw: problem is, -ot is not in fact ## area. it is an ubuntu channel where our guidelines stand
[13:43] <topyli> please don't make your own interpretations of what is and what should be. these things are very clear unless we ourselves start messing them up
[13:45] <phillw> topyli: I do know that all channels fall under freenode rules, but what is acceptable on an offtopic channel <> support channel. When the rules are clearly written, we can follow them & make sure others also do.
[13:46] <topyli> ubuntu channels have their own rules in addition to freenode's
[13:47] <topyli> which are clearly written down
[13:47] <phillw> So, can you answer me what is the point of -ot if it is not a placce to stretch your legs away from support channels?
[13:47] <topyli> that is exactly the point
[13:48] <topyli> what's the question? :)
[13:51] <phillw> topyli: I treat -ot as ## in terms of policing. Can you point me to the rules that let me know the policing differences between a support channel an -ot and where they differ from ##? I'm all for learning as a trainee :)
[13:52] <Myrtti> first of all we'd need to know what you think defines "##"
[13:52] <topyli> the "policing" is exactly the same, only the channels have different topics. #ubuntu is for support for example, #ubuntu-offtopic is for relaxing. your ## interpretation just does not hold
[13:52] <phillw> Myrtti: a room that follows freenode rules, no other additional rules
[13:53] <Myrtti> er right
[13:53] <topyli> -ot certainly does not fall under that definition
[13:53] <phillw> I'm glad that our -ot does not fall under that remit, then :)
[13:54] <Myrtti> so you treat it as something that fall under only freenode rules?
[13:54] <Myrtti> falls, even
[13:54] <phillw> Myrtti: yeah, we do.. that is the raison d'etre for it.
[13:55] <topyli> who is "we"?
[13:55] <topyli> because you're wrong in this matter
[13:55] <phillw> topyli: the people authorised to action breakage of the freenode rules. Those rules are nice and straight forward
[13:56] <Myrtti> that would explain a few things I've not understood about the channel, and is also somewhat worrysome.
[13:56] <phillw> topyli: I'm all ears, do please explain.
[13:56] <topyli> nobody is authorized to break freenode rules
[13:56] <phillw> correct
[13:57] <Myrtti> and you don't expect people in #lubuntu-offtopic to honor Ubuntu Code of Conduct, or IRC guidelines?
[13:58] <phillw> IIRC applies to #lubuntu and is enforced. -ot follows freenode rules. As to why CoC / IIRC wish to enforce additional rules on the -ot area is, IMHO well outside of your remit.
[13:58] <tsimpson> following the Code of Conduct is a requirement in all Ubuntu related channels (as well as any other form of communication in the Ubuntu community), the IRC Guidelines are really just an IRC-specific extension to that code
[13:59] <phillw> tsimpson: which part of CoC is not covered in freenode rules? I'm not being antagonistic, I really do want to learn the difference.
[13:59] <topyli> #lubuntu-offtopic is in the ubuntu namespace, and is expected to follow the CoC and the IRC guidelines. i don't think this is negotiable. if you want a channel with easier expectations, feel free to create a channel outside our namespace
[14:00] <tsimpson> the Guidelines are (iirc) a requirement for the core channels, other channels can either choose to use it or not
[14:00] <tsimpson> the CoC is not optional in any part of the community
[14:00] <phillw> topyli: that's odd, Ubuntu Beginners Team did, and it got closed down.
[14:01] <topyli> #lubuntu-offtopic qualifies as a core channel
[14:01] <phillw> topyli: qualifies by whom? When was the vote held?
[14:02] <phillw> #lubuntu is a core channel & allowed official bots, -ot was never mentioned.
[14:02] <topyli> no votes. it is documented here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope
[14:02] <tsimpson> phillw: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope contains a definition of what qualifies as core
[14:03] <topyli> #l-ot is "Main off-topic/discussion channel for Ubuntu, or for an officially supported or officially recognised Ubuntu derivative"
[14:03] <tsimpson> in short, main support and offtopic channels for Ubuntu and official (as defined by Canonical) derivatives
[14:03] <phillw> I note the word "qualify", it does state "has to be"
[14:03] <topyli> it is a core channel, that's not for discussion
[14:03] <phillw> *does not*
[14:04] <phillw> thank you all for clearing that up. I will pen an email to the lubuntu members telling them that -ot is no longer -ot
[14:05] <Myrtti> *sigh*
[14:05] <phillw> ditto
[14:06] <tsimpson> phillw: if it was a place where the CoC could be violated at whim, then please do pen an announcement stating that it's no longer the case
[14:06] <phillw> tsimpson: there is never a case where CoC breach would be tolerated
[14:07] <tsimpson> so it's just the IRC Guidelines that you object to? if so, which part(s) in particular don't fit with #lubuntu-offtopic?
[14:07] <tsimpson> by "object to", I mean "object to being applied to #lubuntu-offtopic"
[14:09] <phillw> But, I seek clarification on where IIRC rules are different to freenode rules for an -ot?
[14:10] <tsimpson> the rules are freenode rules + Code of Conduct + IRC Guidelines
[14:10] <topyli> it should be obvious that ubuntu offopic channels are different from #defocus, for example
[14:10] <phillw> I was the guy who asked for -ot precisely to have an area away from the support channel.
[14:10] <tsimpson> there's nothing stopping it from being that
[14:11] <phillw> then, to go full circle.. why does someone find it worrysome about #lubuntu-ot ?
[14:12] <Myrtti> I doubt anyone is coming to the channel slapping the rules on the table and killing the discussion right now because the rules are different, unless you do it
[14:12] <topyli> i'm pulling up the pub analogy again. there are some where anything goes, and there are some where a certain standard of behavior is expected unless you want to be thrown out. ubuntu channels fall in the latter category
[14:12] <Myrtti> but the fact that you didn't know or realise that the Code of Conduct of IRC guidelines apply to #l-ot is worrysome
[14:12] <Myrtti> atleast to me
[14:13] <topyli> phillw: i don't even know what #lubuntu-offtopic is like. i took issue with your comment about the guidelines and how they supposedly don't apply to the channel
[14:13] <phillw> topyli: as a holder of a pub licence I know what you mean. I explain to my staff that there is a line in the sand that may not be crossed.
[14:13] <topyli> right
[14:14] <Myrtti> on top of that there is the nationwide laws about serving alcohol
[14:14] <Myrtti> and countywide licence restrictions.
[14:15] <topyli> these might be analogue to the freenode rules, in this discussion. the ubuntu guidelines are the pub-specific standards
[14:15] <phillw> topyli: in an -ot I, personally would only intervene if it was a breach of freenode. They have a good set of rules, I also use both the standard CoC and the advanced one for people placed in a position of trust.
[14:16] <Myrtti> there is a saying in Finnish and I think it fits here. Lillukanvarsia.
[14:16] <phillw> topyli: you will be familiar with the standard version of http://forum.phillw.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=29
[14:16] <topyli> phillw: i see. but your job is to uphold the CoC and the IRC guidelines in your channels
[14:16] <topyli> so i suggest you rethink this
[14:17] <tsimpson> there already is a leadership code of conduct
[14:17] <tsimpson> http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu/leadership-conduct
[14:18] <phillw> tsimpson: oddly enough, that is the one! As released under share and share alike by Ubuntu
[14:18] <Myrtti> honestly, if things keep working without a hitch and people behave as expected, it doesn't matter which document sanctions flipping the bird on a channel or mooning the channel goers
[14:18] <topyli> heh
[14:18] <Myrtti> So now that we've established the fact that code of conduct, freenode rules and irc guidelines apply to #l-ot, I don't see where the problem is
[14:18] <Myrtti> as long as you are aware that they do
[14:19] <Myrtti> and since you've already been acting like they do, even if you've called the tomato toumatou instead of tohmato, then we're sorted
[14:20] <Myrtti> the name of the document is irrelevant, it's what is acted on that means something
[14:20] <topyli> yeah
[14:21] <phillw> Myrtti: we all came up though the ranks, as I actioned OP privs to people they had to to convince me that they had not only understood the 'basic' CoC, but also the higher one.
[14:22] <topyli> good policy
[14:22] <phillw> The glee is that the task of so deciding on a "fit and proper person" no longer weighs upon my shoulders .... IRCC now does that :D
[14:23] <topyli> the ircc no longer has the ability to be aware of all good op candidates on all ubuntu channels, so it is up to you to identify them in the #lubuntu space and encourage them to apply
[14:24] <Myrtti> write testimonials on their wikipage and/or IRCC email address and the bright light shall shine
[14:26] <phillw> topyli: the reason I parted company from UBT was 'council'. I'm really pleased to see UBT have scrapped it, had they had people like Alan on theirs things would not have gotten silly. I spend a fair bit of time and energy encouraging people to take up the challenge of being a moderator on IRC / Forum etc.
[14:28] <topyli> if you think a council is doing a bad job, you change the people. you don't have to throw away the entire institution - it was created for a purpose
[14:28] <phillw> Myrtti: watch benonsoftware, he is already a full ubuntu member at the tender age of 14. He, and the likes of AlexAv are our future. It really is a privalidge to assist them.
[14:30] <Myrtti> I've seen Linux geeks who have been brilliant at age 14. Then I've also seen people who haven't been.
[14:31] <topyli> there are brilliant 14 year olds and there are 41 yeah olds you don't even want to look at
[14:31] <Myrtti> the prime example is now studying in nearby technical university and she AFAIK compiled the kernel for the first time when she was 14 or so. She must be 19 or so now.
[14:31] <topyli> breaking news, people are different! but i do believe everyone is good at something
[14:33] <topyli> how old was marcelo when he started maintaining the linux kernel? 16 maybe?
[14:33] <topyli> 18
[14:33] <phillw> We have seen the spectacular rise and fall of MichealH ... That really hurt me, as I reckoned he would 'make the grade'... but not every apprentice gets past the finishing line. To hark back to the pubs... I am a trainer for people in the cellar side of it. some pass, some fail.
[14:34] <topyli> maybe this should continue in -ops-team if we're talking about people with names
[14:34] <phillw> topyli: so true, everyone has a talent. The key to happiness is finding it & encouraging them to follow it.
[14:34] <topyli> indeed
[16:43] <tjiggi_fo> [01:42] <phillw> I treat -ot as an ## area
[16:43] <tjiggi_fo> Thank you for voicing that sentiment phillw - you speak for a not insignificant proportion of the Ubuntu community.
[16:45]  * oCean blinks
[16:52]  * phillw hates it when some one pings (mentions your name) and then is not there when you have finished what you were doing :/
[16:55] <mneptok> phillw: late to the "party" here ... but "Don't use public away messages" is in the U IRC Guidelines, and certainly Freenode policy does not care.
[16:55] <AlanBell> tjiggi_fo does not appear to be much of a conversationalist
[16:55] <AlanBell> I suspect tjiggi_fo is reading the logs so maybe that person might like to stick around a bit next time they pop in
[16:58] <mneptok> AlanBell: please stop talking to the ceiling and take your meds.
[16:58] <oCean> hehe
[16:59]  * AlanBell takes caffeine as the doctor advises
[17:13] <phillw> mneptok: [[but "Don't use public away messages" is in the U IRC Guidelines, and certainly Freenode policy does not care.]] can I ask when and how I did that? I use pidgin for IRC. if it re-logs me as idle I attempt to castrate it. This is the 1st time I've ever been alerted to it.....
[17:33] <mneptok> phillw: no no. i'm just pointing out a place where the IRC Guidelines and Freenode policy diverge.
[17:34] <mneptok> phillw: -ot channels are held to that standard, which is in no way part of standard network policy.
[17:42] <phillw> mneptok: you state standard, would you care to share with me which one the -ot follows? Guidelines and policy are very different animals in terms of enforcement.
[17:44]  * popey considers cooking AlanBell and eating him.
[17:45] <pangolin> lol
[17:45]  * AlanBell suggests a nice Chianti. And whats for pud?
[17:45]  * pangolin hands popey a cookie instead
[17:46] <jussi> popey's hunting humans... whoooaaaoo...
[17:46] <AlanBell> there might be something somewhere in the guidelines that is too #ubuntu specific, and isn't that relevant to other channels. That is why bug 788503 exists and we should fix that
[17:48] <AlanBell> but in general that looks like stuff that every channel could be happy with
[17:52] <phillw> mneptok: AlanBell I once again apologise, but I'm still having a problem with what is and is not allowed on #l-ot, do we follow the standard "behave" as per freenode, or does IRCC stick extra rules on?
[17:53] <AlanBell> that isn't really the point of the IRCC
[17:53] <pangolin> phillw: the rules for all ubuntu channels are follow the CoC which happen to coincide with the freenode rules.
[17:53] <AlanBell> it is not about rules and regulations and enforcement and stuff
[17:54] <AlanBell> we just administer the channels that the Ubuntu community use with the objective of making them a welcoming and productive place for everyone
[17:54] <phillw> So, if the channel ops on #l-ot are happy with the chat, we need not intevene?
[17:54] <AlanBell> the Code of Conduct is a general set of principles that the Ubuntu community endorses
[17:54] <AlanBell> first line of which is . . .
[17:55] <AlanBell> This Code of Conduct covers our behaviour as members of the Ubuntu Community, in any forum, mailing list, wiki, web site, IRC channel, install-fest, public meeting or private correspondence.
[17:56] <AlanBell> there is incidentally nothing in the Code of Conduct that says swearing is bad per se. however we like to keep the IRC channels suitable for participants of all ages so we keep the language fairly clean most of the time
[17:56] <AlanBell> and that principle is just as true in offtopic channels as it is in support channels
[17:57] <AlanBell> though swearing in support channels comes across as unprofessional as well as unsuitable
[17:57] <phillw> AlanBell: #lubuntu be came "owened" by IRCC, this is an old discussion. Our Ops were vetted by ourselves to the higher standard of CoC
[17:57] <ikonia> is this really happening ?
[17:58] <ikonia> phillw: how hard is this to grasp. The official ubuntu channels follow the official ubuntu guidelines
[17:58] <ikonia> concept even
[17:58] <ikonia> #lubuntu #lubuntu-offtopic #lubuntu-$anything are official channels so they follow the official rules.
[17:58] <ikonia> how is this not a simple concerpt to grasp
[17:59] <phillw> ikonia: how hard is to grasp the difference between a support chanell and an off topic one?
[17:59] <ikonia> phillw: the topic of the channel have nothing to do with it
[17:59] <ikonia> phillw: the guide lines of the channel are the same #
[18:00] <phillw> ikonia: thank you for finally clarifying that! I was under the impression that -ot channels are lightly policed.
[18:00] <AlanBell> I remain confused as to why this is an issue
[18:00] <ikonia> AlanBell: as do I
[18:00] <ikonia> it's just going on the same thing over and over
[18:00] <ikonia> phillw: good, glad it's clear, all ubuntu official channels follow the same guidelines
[18:01] <Myrtti> its tomato tomato discussion
[18:01]  * pangolin grabs the mayo and bread
[18:01] <AlanBell> it really isn't much to do with "official channels" either
[18:01] <pangolin> popey: marmite with your tomato?
[18:02] <AlanBell> I would expect members of the Ubuntu community to be just as nice and friendly in other channels they are in
[18:02] <phillw> ikonia: the issue was when did #l-ot get elected? We accept #lubuntu as IIRC, but it was a surprise to learn -ot is also under IIRC rules, instead of lubuntu OP staff rules.
[18:03] <AlanBell> whut?
[18:03] <AlanBell> see this is what I am confused about
[18:03] <ikonia> phillw: elected ? we accept ? what are you talking about
[18:03] <AlanBell> it has nothing to do with officialness
[18:03] <ikonia> phillw: it's in the ubuntu namespace
[18:04] <AlanBell> part of the Ubuntu Community is more the point
[18:05] <phillw> AlanBell: many, many months ago I was asked to enable IIRC as OP's on #lubuntu. This was during a serious problem with the TL of Speech Control. That request was granted by me as a matter of courtesy.
[18:06] <Myrtti> loco channels aren't governed by ircc, but they still should use the guidelines
[18:06] <phillw> ikonia: no, it is not ... lubuntu was granted # status by freenode.
[18:06] <ikonia> what ???
[18:06] <ikonia> freenode
[18:06] <ikonia> phillw: what are you talking about
[18:06] <Myrtti>  they can't be enforced by ircc, but it's the general idea
[18:06] <phillw> we were not adopted... please do read our history.
[18:07] <ikonia> ??
[18:09] <phillw> we ran ourselves, and still do. We do not have a council, nor ranks. That is prohibited as per a meeting that was held to discuss it.
[18:09] <pangolin> This is how I see the issue. when #lubuntu first started up it was a separate entity and governed by what I can believe was phillw (with absolute power by him) You (the lubuntu project) asked to become official and the project worked very hard and succeeded. Now that Lubuntu is officially a part of Ubuntu which makes the IRC channels subject to the Ubuntu IRC rules ( the IRCC) phillw YOU no longer have the power and I think it is time for you
[18:09] <pangolin>  to understand that. You no longer make the rules, you no longer decide who can be an op, you are now subject to the decisions of the IRCC.
[18:09] <ikonia> sorry, but this is just nonsense
[18:10] <Tm_T> what is nonsense?
[18:10] <ikonia> phillw: if you don't want to follow the ubuntu IRC guidelines, I suggest you quit the project, sorry, but you're just being a problem too much now with this sort of nonsense
[18:10]  * Tm_T is still reading the logs so doesn't know the full story yet
[18:10] <ikonia> good luck with it
[18:10] <Tm_T> ikonia: that cleared it, I think (:
[18:11] <phillw> pangolin: you have got it soooo wrong, I'll go drop my +F right now to prove just how wrong you are.
[18:11] <pangolin> and that right there sir is proof why you should be removed from the access list
[18:11] <pangolin> and removed from the ops team.
[18:11] <pangolin> I'm done.
[18:12] <ikonia> the channels are part of the ubuntu project, they follow the ubuntu guidelines/rules whatever word ticks your box, if you're not confortable with that, thats something you'll have to square with yourself.
[18:12]  * AlanBell wonders off to have dinner
[18:12] <ikonia> yeah, I'm out, this is just babble
[18:12]  * phillw wanders off
[18:13] <phillw> please remove me from IRC OPS, If we cannot discuss things, then there is no point.
[18:14] <pangolin> there is no discussing when someone refuses to accept the inevitable truth.
[18:14] <Myrtti> ho hum...
[20:11] <pangolin> @mark #ubuntu * [pfifo] (~pfifo@68.204.61.242) telling user to pirate Windows.
[20:11] <pangolin> @mark #ubuntu  [pfifo] (~pfifo@68.204.61.242) telling user to pirate Windows.
[20:13] <pangolin> he is also a time waster.
[20:42] <dax> ikonia: he's still doing it, btw
[20:43] <ikonia> he's muted so I wasn't paying attention
[20:43] <dax> *nod*
[20:43] <ikonia> gone
[20:43] <ikonia> can't be bothered wasting time
[20:43] <ikonia> thanks for the heads up
[22:10] <Silverlion> good evening