[00:17] <MarkDude> Mare Island fun http://www.obtainiumworks.net/obtainium-cup/
[00:17] <darthrobot> Title: [Obtainium Cup | Obtainium Works]
[16:09] <MarkDude> Anyone else besides pleia2 done anything with LoL in Oakland? http://oaklandmakerspace.wordpress.com/
[16:09] <darthrobot> Title: [Liberating Ourselves Locally | a people-of-color-led, gender-balanced maker space in East Oakland]
[16:09] <MarkDude> radically inclusive- i like that\
[18:16] <nhaines> jono_: ping
[18:16] <jono_> hi nhaines
[18:16] <nhaines> Heya, jono. :)
[18:41] <nhaines> jono_: thanks for your help!  Now if I can just get people to stop CC:ing me on ML emails the day will really be perfect. :P
[18:41] <pleia2> nhaines: hah hah, you ask too much
[18:42] <nhaines> pleia2: a man can dream.  ;)
[18:56] <MarkDude> lol- cc is one way to say- I needs some help here :D
[19:40] <MarkDude> pleia2: grantbow Parimus email sent- still looking at funding ideas
[19:41] <jono_> nhaines, being CCed on emails, trust me, I feel your pain
[19:42] <jono_> my inbox is like a disaster movie
[19:44]  * MarkDude has friends that reach *inbox zero*- how can they keep doing that all the time
[19:44] <MarkDude> ?
[19:45] <pleia2> shift d
[19:46] <MarkDude> lol- yes that seems like a short term fix. Altho- that should be my response when Im asked if I got an email
[20:05] <MarkDude> http://www.cuartotech.com/  <<< these people pleia2 :)
[20:05] <darthrobot> Title: [14 TECH - Home]
[20:08] <pleia2> MarkDude: I replied to your mail, it's really best to follow up with the appropriate mailing list, I am not the best to talk to about fundraising (I have no experience)
[20:10] <nhaines> I'm fine with being CC:ed when appropriate.  When I'm subscribed to the list and participating in conversation, however, is not appropriate.  :P
[20:11] <MarkDude> Fair enough- and yes on CC
[20:11] <MarkDude> Understood
[20:11] <MarkDude> Even worse is when folks bcc me
[20:11] <MarkDude> No good reason for that
[20:12]  * MarkDude will sendthat to ML. Im just at a loss on our planned growth :)
[20:12] <MarkDude> fundraising aside
[20:13] <pleia2> that's what the list is for :)
[20:13] <pleia2> figuring it out
[20:13] <pleia2> right now we're still lean on volunteers
[20:13] <pleia2> (also, you probably want to be talking about this in #partimus rather than here)
[20:39] <GNUdru> http://loco.ubuntu.com/events/ubuntu-california/2476-ubuntu-hour-mountain-viewsilicon-valley/
[20:39] <darthrobot> Title: [Ubuntu Hour: Mountain View/Silicon Valley | Ubuntu LoCo Team Portal]
[20:40] <GNUdru> tonight 7-8 @ Red Rock Coffee in Mountain View
[20:43] <pleia2> GNUdru: thanks! tweeting now
[20:43] <GNUdru> gracias pleia2 amiga
[20:44] <MarkDude> Would meeting be the right place to bring up adding robot.txt to keep Ubuntu Cali logs from being searchable on Google?
[20:44] <akk> Darn! I can't make it, pyladies study session at the same time just down the street.
[20:44] <MarkDude> Or would I need to request that from a supervising body?
[20:44]  * MarkDude *just* found out how easily these logs can be searched via google
[20:45] <pleia2> MarkDude: we want people to find these logs, we're trying to be a very open group here
[20:45] <GNUdru> darn akk
[20:45] <GNUdru> or i should say akk darn
[20:45] <pleia2> MarkDude: please use the -offtopic channel if you wish to discuss people without including those who can't always be here, that's why it's created
[20:46] <pleia2> s/people/things
[20:46] <MarkDude> When logs were proposed- I remember being told it was not gonna be indexed
[20:46] <pleia2> it was said it would be looked into
[20:46] <MarkDude> Not sure the group realizes it either
[20:46] <MarkDude> Not trying to open old wounds- but Im sure at least a few dont like the idea :)
[20:47] <pleia2> but I'm very much against limiting access our resources, we want to be open here
[20:47] <pleia2> I'm not going to talk about this further, we've hashed this out with you dozens of times
[20:47] <GNUdru> MarkDude: it seems logical that a meeting would be a good place to bring it up.  Why not?
[20:47] <MarkDude> Well, that depends on if folks want to be able to look at logs via Ubuntu OR Google
[20:47] <GNUdru> to be fair to MarkDude pleia2 i had the same concern.
[20:47] <MarkDude> I still have a voice here
[20:48] <MarkDude> :)
[20:48] <MarkDude> GNUdru: the answer will be: ask a supervising body :)
[20:48] <pleia2> GNUdru: and we agreed that being an open group that was inclusing of even folks who can't be connected 24/7 was more important, so we created the offtopic channel as a compromise for people who wish to discuss things without the whole team
[20:49] <pleia2> it's not only unindexed, it's not formally logged anywhere
[20:49] <MarkDude> Pretty sure of that, so let's say it at a meeting- and then go from there. I dont think groups are allowed to decide this
[20:49] <pleia2> s/inclusing/inclusive
[20:49] <pleia2> MarkDude: you are opening old wounds and I don't know what you seek to achieve by this, it's really upsetting
[20:50] <akk> I was against it too, but I thought it was pretty clear when the decision was made that it would be logged and indexed.
[20:50] <akk> Nothing new here.
[20:50] <MarkDude> http://www.google.com/#q=markdude+ubuntu-us-ca+logging
[20:50] <darthrobot> Title: [Google]
[20:51] <MarkDude> Well thats it- it IS fully searchable
[20:51] <pleia2> good, more people can find it and get involved
[20:51] <pleia2> that's what we *want*
[20:51] <GNUdru> it doesn't mean that our concern will be adopted as the group view, but still the meeting is an appropriate place to bring it up.  Of course even topics that have been hashed through before doesn't mean people might not change their mind.  in this case now the privacy problem has been illuminated for all to see.  no longer are only a few of us aware of what the NSA is up to (as I have been aware of since 2004 at
[20:51] <pleia2> anyway, back to work
[20:51] <GNUdru> least).
[20:51] <MarkDude> Via Google, other projects have robot.txt to avoid that, And have you go to their site
[20:52] <MarkDude> Well thats it too GNUdru - the Unitarian Church just took a public stance on this
[20:52] <akk> As I understood it, the decision isn't up to each individual LoCo, it's an Ubuntu-wide policy.
[20:52] <MarkDude> Nope
[20:52] <MarkDude> Its by channel
[20:52]  * MarkDude will not mention un-logged channel
[20:52] <MarkDude> Its a suggestion
[20:52] <GNUdru> yes, suing the NSA, with the EFF and Free Software Foundation and many others joining in.  Its about time.
[20:52] <MarkDude> :)
[20:53] <MarkDude> Yep.
[20:53] <MarkDude> akk, it was made very clear at time- it was not Ubuntu wide. Due to at least one non offtopic channel being unlogged
[20:54] <akk> What I understood them to be telling us was that the official channel for each loco would be logged, no exceptions.
[20:54] <akk> That's not to say there couldn't be unlogged ubuntu-related channels somewhere too.
[20:54] <MarkDude> And debate should not be viewed as old wounds. Being defensive about discussion.
[20:55] <MarkDude> That was said, policy details DONT back that up last time I checked :)
[20:55] <GNUdru> logging just makes me not want to participate in the loco channel.  I can see it for the support channels, all well and good, but not for the loco channels
[20:55] <MarkDude> Im pretty sure, most people will ignore what I say. Thats cool.
[20:56] <MarkDude> Well the exact reason given was: to help with tech support questions
[20:56] <GNUdru> like i said MarkDude, circumstances have changed, so don't count your point of view out before even presenting it.
[20:57]  * MarkDude suggests that seeing the past of this channel sorta sucks. So seeing the old fighting via Google is bad, imho
[20:57] <GNUdru> loco channels aren't about tech support for the most part
[20:57] <MarkDude> If we want to move on, allowing people to stumble upon *dirty laundry* on accident, seems to hurt getting people involved.
[20:58] <MarkDude> If you have not noticed- this channel appears to be very, very quiet
[20:58] <MarkDude> Small states are more active. Maybe, just maybe, people find the old drama via Google and say- I have better things to do elsewhere
[20:59] <MarkDude> talk to some folks that are very active Ubuntu user at Sudoroom. Debate is healthy, but after a while- it should be water under the bridge
[21:00]  * MarkDude 's intent here? To get the logs with my name removed from being so easily searchable
[21:00]  * MarkDude for sure was not aware logs would be posted - retroactively 
[21:00] <MarkDude> eof
[21:00] <akk> You're saying they posted logs from before the decision that the channel would be logged?
[21:01] <GNUdru> i saw an instance recently where someone demanded (quite innocuous) info about them accessible to Google removed from a web site or threatened legal action.  It was removed.
[21:02] <MarkDude> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/680052
[21:02] <darthrobot> Title: [Bug #680052 “#ubuntu-us-ca logging needs search indexing blocked...” : Bugs : ubuntu-community]
[21:06] <GNUdru> MarkDude: one reason i don't post here often is because of this problem.  when we had this controversy and you, i and akk were over ridden i read the writing on the wall and lessened my participa tion accordingly.  IMO the CoC is used too often to silence debate.  So my take is, i don't agree with how the Ubuntu Community is being operated, the logging issue being just one of many aspects, so i go elsewhere.
[21:11] <MarkDude> Understood. At the present time I think I can only comment on the logging of current, as well as what happened in past.
[21:12] <GNUdru> well sure, i wasn't suggesting that you need to make the same choices i do MarkDude
[21:12] <MarkDude> I have not signed new CoC, nor do I plan to. There was no expiration date on it. Im assuming it depends on if you signed the new one
[21:12] <MarkDude> I know that, just more it would be appropriate for you to have waaaaay more opinions on this
[21:12] <pleia2> this channel is not your personal playground, just like all of our resources it's open and exists so the team can make plans and coordinate events and activities, this information needs to be available to all our community members regardless of whether they have the resources to be connected 24/7 or not
[21:13] <pleia2> so please stop, use the offtopic channel if you must, that's why you created it, but saying this is some privacy thing is exclusionary and misses the whole point of the channel
[21:13] <MarkDude> All that would hold true - even if they had to go see logs on Ubuntu site. Im pretty sure thats not making it too hard
[21:14] <GNUdru> pleia2: sorry mi amiga but i don't think that tone of defensiveness towards MarkDude is called for.
[21:14] <MarkDude> If its a policy - thats one thing. Of its our members cant be bothered to go to Ubuntu site, thats straw man, imho
[21:14] <pleia2> GNUdru: you are taking things personally again, there is no "tone" - I am explaining what the channel is for because there seems to be a gross misunderstanding here
[21:15] <GNUdru> pleia2: i wasn't taking it personally as it wasn't directed towards me
[21:15] <pleia2> there are dozens of channels all over freenode where you guys can chat without it being related to the work that this project engages in and we wish to see public so all our members can be involved
[21:15] <GNUdru> pleia2: but the tone you are taking IMO is unecessarily harsh
[21:15] <nhaines> The LoCo Council made their intentions quite clear when they forceably renamed #ubuntu-california and mandated logging over the objections of the leadership at the time.
[21:15] <pleia2> hundreds even
[21:16] <pleia2> GNUdru: you misread me all the time
[21:16] <pleia2> there is not "tone" here
[21:16] <nhaines> And it was just as clear what -offtopic was for when that was created.
[21:16] <pleia2> I am trying to explain
[21:16] <GNUdru> or you misread me
[21:17] <GNUdru> just because a decision was made once doesn't mean it will stand for all time pleia2, so debate on topics is perfectly appropriate
[21:17] <akk> Is the "on an ubuntu site" phrasing a suggestion that if they were there, search engines wouldn't/couldn't index them?
[21:17] <pleia2> fine, debate
[21:17]  * akk doesn't know where the logs are, but always assumed they were on "an ubuntu site"
[21:17] <pleia2> but I don't agree, this is an open source project and I'm very much against making it closed and excluding people who don't have the resources to always be here
[21:18] <nhaines> GNUdru: the decision wasn't made by the LoCo and their opinion on the topic isn't welcome.  You'll have to bring it up with the LoCo Council if you want a debate.  If *they* want one.
[21:18] <GNUdru> pleia2: i see your point.  i also see akk's and MarkDude's and my point of view.  There can be multiple valid points on issues.  This is a case of that IMO
[21:19] <pleia2> GNUdru: if they don't wish to participate openly in this project, there is nothing requiring them to :)
[21:19] <GNUdru> yes nhaines i see what you're saying
[21:19] <nhaines> (hint: they don't)
[21:19] <pleia2> the loco council shares my opinion about the purpose for loco channels
[21:21] <GNUdru> but pleia2 if i take your framing of the issue very strictly, i would not be able to allow for other aspects of the situation such as MarkDude, akk and I bring up.  That is one aspect.  Valid sure, but only one.
[21:21] <MarkDude> Playground is most certainly a tone
[21:21] <MarkDude> I thought we were done- I moved on. I'll read the rest of the scrollback later
[21:22] <pleia2> MarkDude: what word would you prefer?
[21:22] <GNUdru> MarkDude: well let's just drop that aspect of the conversation, si amigo?
[21:22] <pleia2> "it's not your personal space" ?
[21:22] <GNUdru> i brought it up, and so i request it be dropped
[23:17] <jyo> Has anyone gotten pius to play well with Gmail SMTP?
[23:18] <pleia2> pius?
[23:19] <jyo> keysigning majigger: http://www.phildev.net/pius/
[23:19] <darthrobot> Title: [Pius]
[23:21] <pleia2> ah, neat :)
[23:25] <jyo> So for signature levels, sig is just 0, yes?