[17:58] <funkyHat> ô/
[17:58] <Pici> \o
[17:58] <topyli> a smoke and i'm ready
[18:00] <AlanBell> evening all
[18:00] <AlanBell> #startmeeting ircc meeting
[18:00] <meetingology> Meeting started Sun Mar 25 18:00:47 2012 UTC.  The chair is AlanBell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[18:00] <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
[18:01] <AlanBell> agenda is over here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:01] <AlanBell> so who is here for the meeting o/
[18:02] <topyli> o/
[18:02] <funkyHat> ô//
[18:02] <bioterror> \o
[18:02] <Pici> cogito, ergo sum.
[18:02] <topyli> heh
[18:03] <AlanBell> #topic Review last meetings action items
[18:03] <AlanBell> #progress Pici to send mail to the list about the guidelines document to encourage edits and fixes to the FIXMEs
[18:03] <MrChrisDruif> o/
[18:03] <Pici> I put together an email about the wrong thing. Sooo.. I didn't send that, but should have this email out either today or tomorrow.
[18:03] <AlanBell> ok, that would be great
[18:04] <topyli> good
[18:04] <AlanBell> I did a bit of tinkering with the guidelines etherpad
[18:04] <AlanBell> I think it is nearly ready to go
[18:04] <Pici> great
[18:05] <topyli> AlanBell: so you left few FIXMEs to fix? :)
[18:05] <AlanBell> I removed a few of them
[18:05] <AlanBell> I think there are a couple left
[18:06] <topyli> ok, good progress
[18:06] <AlanBell> lets have another go at finishing that off this week and get it published at the next meeting if possible
[18:06] <topyli> yes, would be nice to close this bug
[18:06] <AlanBell> another pici action now
[18:06] <AlanBell> #progress Pici to work on the list of expired members
[18:06] <AlanBell> get anywhere with that?
[18:07] <Pici> Not really. I'll take care of it though.
[18:07] <Pici> .30
[18:08] <AlanBell> ok
[18:08] <AlanBell> #progress oCean to edit the guide to add advice on support questions in -offtopic
[18:08] <AlanBell> hmm, which guide was that supposed to be?
[18:09] <AlanBell> that was relating to the supporters guide
[18:09] <Pici> Was it?
[18:09] <Pici> I think we asked this same question about this item last time too...
[18:09] <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/SupportersGuide
[18:09] <AlanBell> at the very bottom
[18:09] <AlanBell> so this item is done
[18:10] <topyli> great
[18:10] <AlanBell> ok, that concludes the actions from the last meeting
[18:10] <AlanBell> #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker
[18:10] <AlanBell> we have no open items \o/
[18:10] <topyli> more than that, it's done well
[18:10] <topyli> woo!
[18:11] <MrChrisDruif> Hurray
[18:11] <AlanBell> #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council
[18:11] <AlanBell> no new bugs
[18:11] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 788503 IRC Guidelines too #ubuntu centric - tsimpson
[18:11] <AlanBell> this is in progress and we want to sort it out for the next meeting
[18:11] <Pici> indeed.
[18:12] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 884671 Ubuntu IRC operator recruitment is slow and ungainly - jussi
[18:12] <topyli> i'm not convinced that jussi has had the chance to really look into this
[18:12] <topyli> he recently gained a real life :)
[18:12] <ikonia> it's odd that this has been raised since jussi was one of the main people who pushed the existing process
[18:13] <Pici> heh
[18:13] <AlanBell> yeah, but thats fine, I just put the person who raised the bug in the agenda
[18:13] <Tm_T> ikonia: that only means he cares of the process
[18:13] <topyli> ikonia: it's good to have him lead fixing it then. he agrees with the premise
[18:13] <ikonia> what's actually looking at being changed though ?
[18:13] <AlanBell> we have had a few people apply for ops in #ubuntustudio, great to see that project reanimated
[18:13] <Pici> Nothing wrong with taking another look at the process as a whole.
[18:14] <ikonia> more so as ubuntustudio is understaffed
[18:14] <AlanBell> ikonia: well for one, we are doing applications from existing ops as they happen, and we did process all the applications in all the queues from existing ops
[18:14] <topyli> ikonia: we want to be able to appoint ops without the process, when we know the people to be good
[18:14] <ikonia> topyli: wasn't that how it was before the existing process was put in place ?
[18:15] <ikonia> AlanBell: yeah, it was nice to see that
[18:15] <AlanBell> the other thing we are doing is batching recruitment a bit and doing the induction thing a bit differently
[18:15] <topyli> the current process makes it easier for us to evaluate people whom we don't know
[18:15] <ikonia> AlanBell: the post-acceptence stuff is really good, I'm looking at the application and post acceptence as two seperate things
[18:17] <Pici> We should really reach out to our new ops as we get them and ask them if they think the process could have been done better.
[18:17] <MrChrisDruif> So like asking me? ;-)
[18:18] <topyli> ikonia: i think the current thinking is that we should have both ways at our disposal. the current process for people we don't know, and the "just do it" approach to people that we do know
[18:18] <topyli> Pici: yeah, what did they find difficult or annoying, and what was useful
[18:18] <ikonia> seems sensible
[18:18] <Pici> Aye.
[18:18] <AlanBell> well I think at the time of the precise launch we want to kick off another intake of ops across a wider selection of channels
[18:18] <ikonia> the current new guys may not be the best measure as lots of it was being setup as they where being brought on board
[18:19] <MrChrisDruif> The current process is that a op first gets approved, then after two months evaluated for continuation?
[18:19] <topyli> three months iirc, but yeah
[18:20] <AlanBell> three months, but yes, that is part of it, but this is more about how we find ops and when we process the applications etc
[18:20] <pangolin> only two months? I've been an op for a year or so now and still being evaluated
[18:20] <AlanBell> anyhow, lets move along
[18:20] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 892500 eir is still not fit for purpose in #ubuntu -ikonia
[18:20] <topyli> pangolin: everybody's being evaluated anyway :)
[18:20] <pangolin> topyli, :)
[18:20] <MrChrisDruif> Alright, clear
[18:20] <AlanBell> would like to see a bit more on the eir like functionality from other bots
[18:21] <AlanBell> there has been a bit of a trial of ubottu-fr
[18:21] <AlanBell> how has that been going?
[18:21] <topyli> how much did moving the eir nagging out of -ops-team help?
[18:21] <ikonia> the ubottu-fr stuff seems good
[18:21] <pangolin> topyli, there is less nagging in -ops-team, that is the only difference I have seen
[18:22] <funkyHat> It means -ops-team is usable, not sure how it's affected the banlist in #u though ;)
[18:22] <Pici> I for one am very glad that -ops-team can actually be used instead of it being nearly flooded by eir.
[18:22] <ikonia> eir as a tool does not effect the ban list
[18:22] <ikonia> it adds value auto-removing the floodbots
[18:22] <Pici> Also, I don't think that ubotu-fr is in #ubuntu anymore, or at least its not doing any reporting in -monitor.
[18:22] <ikonia> they where the main cause of the ban list filling up
[18:22] <ikonia> Pici: it's been pm'ing
[18:22] <Pici> Ah.
[18:23] <Myrtti> Pici: it's been pm'ing, and it's also muted in #ubuntu, by me
[18:23] <Myrtti> as a Ubuntu copy it was responding to factoid requests
[18:23] <Pici> I haven't been able to do alot of opping in #ubuntu lately (work = busy)
[18:23] <ikonia> the overall functionality of it has been good though
[18:23] <ikonia> been a little confusing as I keep forgetting which bot we are meant to be using
[18:23] <ikonia> in my view pushing forward with ubottu-fr is worth while as out of the box it beat eir for usability
[18:24] <AlanBell> so what does ubottu-fr do exactly?
[18:24] <ikonia> pretty much the base functionality of eir
[18:24] <pangolin> it does everything eir does + ubottu
[18:24] <ikonia> you get banned it asks you to set a comment on it, updates BT with a relevent comment in the right ban id etc etc
[18:24] <ikonia> if it can auto remove floodbot bans I think it will be pretty much perfect
[18:25] <ikonia> the main thing for me is the auto removal of floodbot bans, keep the ban list ok, then functionality that feeds into BT,
[18:25] <ikonia> it seems a solid base to move forward from
[18:25] <topyli> fresh comments on the bug would be useful, so we can get some tangible indication of progress
[18:26] <ikonia> I'll put some feedback in on it,
[18:26] <AlanBell> so it updates the ubottu bantracker?
[18:26] <ikonia> AlanBell: correct
[18:26] <AlanBell> yay
[18:26] <topyli> ikonia: thanks
[18:26] <AlanBell> yeah, feedback on the bug would be perfect
[18:26] <ikonia> AlanBell: so when you query a ban, it reads from the same ban id
[18:26] <ikonia> all in sync etc.
[18:26] <ikonia> it's not %100 spot on, but it's a solid base for me
[18:26] <ikonia> the sooner we can use that and dump eir, then move on with ubottu as a base, the better it will be in my view
[18:27] <oCean> these bugs are filed against eir, but probably still exist when using ubottu-fr
[18:27] <AlanBell> if people could put their thoughts there, or on the mailing list or elsewhere that would be great, then we can talk about the next steps at the next meeting
[18:27] <ikonia> at the moment we are using a ton of bots so it's hard to get real usage
[18:27] <oCean> err these bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bots?field.searchtext=[eir
[18:27] <ikonia> oCean: some of them are resolved in ubottu-fr
[18:27] <Pici> agreed having only 1 tool is better
[18:28] <topyli> absolutely
[18:28] <ikonia> I think we've been in ubottu/ubottu-fr/eir limbo for a while
[18:28] <ikonia> be nice to start pushing ubottu/ubottu-fr merge and start using it and fix bugs going forward
[18:28] <AlanBell> yup
[18:28] <pangolin> can't we just run our own instance of ubotu-fr?
[18:28] <Pici> how doed ubotu-fr handle floodbot bans?
[18:29] <ikonia> Pici: from what I've seen - nothing yet but nico was saying it can do it
[18:29] <ikonia> Pici: I don't think it's doing it as it would cause a fight with eir
[18:29] <ikonia> Pici: (not certain on that)
[18:29] <ikonia> that's why I'm saying dump eir, get ubottu merged and running, then fix going forward
[18:30] <AlanBell> pangolin: sure, but we had to try it out for a bit first
[18:30] <Pici> are we going to have to do manual removals in batches like we did previously?
[18:30] <ikonia> Pici: I'd check the functionality with nico
[18:30] <pangolin> AlanBell, I don't know that anyone has actually used it for actual ban handling
[18:31] <pangolin> it is there but has anyone set comments with u-fr?
[18:31] <Pici> i'll check with him and look at the code myself
[18:31] <AlanBell> #action people to provide feedback on the ubottu-fr trial on bug 892500
[18:31] <meetingology> ACTION: people to provide feedback on the ubottu-fr trial on bug 892500
[18:31] <topyli> heh
[18:32] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 913541 there are a number of people with Ubuntu IRC cloaks who have expired from the ubuntumembers group - AlanBell
[18:32] <AlanBell> oh, we talked about this one already
[18:32] <AlanBell> #subtopic bug 916247 devel wiki on ubottu.com needs some attention - AlanBell
[18:33] <AlanBell> it did get fixed, we were just keeping this bug around for a bit in case anyone felt like migrating the content to wiki.ubuntu.com
[18:33] <AlanBell> I tried a bit, but it does require quite a lot of manual reformatting to moin syntax
[18:34] <AlanBell> #topic Set all operators to renew at same time via LP so people can plan to deal with the renewals nicely
[18:34] <AlanBell> I did some tinkering with lplib to find out when people do expire, I will did that out in a sec
[18:34] <AlanBell> anyone think this is a startlingly good idea?
[18:35] <Pici> I think it'll fill up my inbox fast ;)
[18:35] <pangolin> who clicks on the renew link for this?
[18:35] <funkyHat> It would mean I could more easily mass-archive all of the renewal emails I get
[18:35] <topyli> less regularly too
[18:35] <Pici> But seriously, it would be nice to deal with everthing at once
[18:36] <topyli> well, more regularly but less often
[18:37] <topyli> there will be cases where people have just renewed and will have to do it again
[18:38] <funkyHat> Unless we set everyone's renewals a year from now
[18:38] <AlanBell> well we could set them all to two years from now
[18:38] <AlanBell> or set them to all expire one week into the term of the next IRCC if we were feeling evil
[18:39] <Pici> tsk tsk
[18:39] <funkyHat> haha
[18:39] <topyli> hehe
[18:39] <AlanBell> I know one IT manager who set all the certificates in the business to expire one week after his 65th birthday
[18:40] <funkyHat> hahaha
[18:40] <topyli> nice farewell :)
[18:40] <AlanBell> anyhow, back to the topic, is harmonising renewal dates a good idea?
[18:41] <ikonia> I see benifit, I see pain
[18:41] <funkyHat> I'm not especially concerned either way
[18:41] <Pici> me either
[18:41] <AlanBell> personally I can't see a net reduction in pain
[18:41] <topyli> it is a good idea. the problem is how we do it in practice. give it a year for everybody sounds good
[18:42] <Pici> i think we'll have issues qhen setting it for new ops
[18:42] <AlanBell> in practice someone sits down with lplib and a python script for an hour or two then presses a button
[18:43] <topyli> meh, i'm failing to have a clear opinion
[18:44] <Pici> perhaps staggering the potential loss of ops would be better....
[18:45] <AlanBell> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ankl5FhsdSiZdEtaNkRRM0xIdWtrTnBKalhZUkdxLXc
[18:46] <Pici> I dont really see an overwhelming need to change it right now.
[18:46] <AlanBell> that is it, now sorted by expiry date
[18:48] <AlanBell> yeah, right now I don't really see the problem that it solves
[18:48] <topyli> maybe we should shelf this. nobody seems to be able to come up with a problem we would solve... yeah
[18:48] <AlanBell> I guess we could give everyone a longer countdown, right now people have one week to press the button
[18:48] <AlanBell> and if they don't then they miss it, and we can sort it out
[18:48] <Myrtti> "here remember to set an alarm on your calendar"
[18:49] <AlanBell> given that I just made a spreadsheet with all the dates on we could do that bit anyway
[18:50] <pangolin> already spent more time on this than the bots issue
[18:50] <Pici> heh
[18:50] <AlanBell> ok, I think we should close this agenda item for the moment, it isn't remotely urgent and it is of questionable value
[18:50] <pangolin> I'm sure this is important but how important?
[18:50] <SilverLion> o/
[18:50] <Pici> Sounds good
[18:50] <AlanBell> #topic Any Other Business
[18:50] <AlanBell> does anyone have anything else they would like to raise?
[18:51]  * Pici thinks
[18:51] <topyli> salaries don't count
[18:51] <AlanBell> we should do some membership applications at some point, not done any of those yet
[18:51]  * AlanBell doubles topyli's salary
[18:51] <topyli> still 0 :(
[18:51]  * pangolin thinks
[18:51] <Pici> do we have any apps ine the queue?
[18:52] <AlanBell> nope
[18:52] <topyli> we're still not advertising irc membership enough
[18:52] <Myrtti> do we have a schedule for harmonizing the channel access lists?
[18:52] <Pici> Comparing with LP, or?
[18:52] <AlanBell> Myrtti: good question, I was going to try and do that in April sometime, I was pondering a semi-automatic way of doing so
[18:52] <pangolin> s/harmonizing/cleaning up/
[18:53] <Myrtti> Pici: and other means of communication
[18:53] <ikonia> question, is it worth revisiting (next meeting) the possability of merging some of the offtopic channels ?
[18:53] <ikonia> or is it a dead waste ?
[18:54] <AlanBell> yeah, we could talk about that
[18:54] <Pici> I think it would be a good discussion
[18:54] <pangolin> ikonia, I think it is a non-issue really. people want to relax in k-ot or whatever I don't see a reason to force them all into one channel.
[18:54] <topyli> theoretically, i'd like a single offtopic channel. but i'm not sure what the other 'flavors' would think
[18:54] <ikonia> if so I'll do an agenda item and put some points to/against it
[18:54] <AlanBell> ok
[18:54] <topyli> ikonia: good, thanks
[18:54] <ikonia> if people think it's worth while
[18:54] <Pici> a diacuasion fir another meeting.....
[18:55] <AlanBell> ok, all done?
[18:55] <Pici> topyli, me as well
[18:55] <Pici> yep
[18:55] <ikonia> I'll raise it then
[18:55] <AlanBell> #endmeeting
[18:55] <meetingology> Meeting ended Sun Mar 25 18:55:44 2012 UTC.
[18:55] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-03-25-18.00.moin.txt
[18:55] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-03-25-18.00.html
[18:55] <AlanBell> less than an hour \o/
[18:56] <funkyHat> yay ^·^
[18:56] <topyli> awesome
[18:56] <Pici> thanks all
[18:56] <funkyHat> Thankyou
[18:56] <topyli> thanks
[18:57] <AlanBell> if anyone wants to have a play with http://notes.kde.org/ubuntuguidelines feel free to pile in and fix stuff
[18:58] <topyli> ikonia: could you also send mail to the irc-team list and ask #k-ot, #x-ot, #l-ot and other ops to join the discussion?
[19:00] <topyli> i might as well do it too though. but if you have already thought about pros and cons, it could be better
[19:27] <ikonia> topyli: sure
[19:28] <topyli> great, thanks