[00:42] <k1l> the same pm spammer like yesterday.
[01:01] <IdleOne> You know this would be a lot quicker if you had +o
[01:02] <LjL> not really, !ops is 4 characters, /mode #ubuntu +b *!*@whatever is like, many, and no, i've been too lazy to set up aliases for banning for the past 3 years
[01:03] <IdleOne> can't argue with that
[01:03] <IdleOne> Point to LjL
[13:43] <knome> oi Myrtti
[13:43] <Myrtti> oi
[13:43] <knome> there's a guy threatening with a DDoS attack. isn't that against freenode's policy?
[13:44] <Myrtti> d'ya want me to wag my finger at him?
[13:45] <Myrtti> then again what would he ddos? your website?
[13:45] <knome> Myrtti, that'd be cool.
[13:45] <knome> i suppose me in irc
[13:45] <Myrtti> mmmh
[13:45] <knome> his nick is DJJeff, and he started the threats after i banned him.
[13:46] <Myrtti> hi DJJeff
[13:46] <Myrtti> don't be a dick
[13:46] <DJJeff> he decided to ban me cause I asked how to fix pulse audio
[13:46] <DJJeff> with skype
[13:46] <DJJeff> in xubuntu
[13:46] <DJJeff> and somehow that offended him
[13:46] <Myrtti> and how is threatening with DDoS supposed to help in getting yourself unbanned?
[13:46] <Myrtti> surely you understand that it wont
[13:47] <Myrtti> it just displays malevolence
[13:47] <DJJeff> I really would love to enjoy my skype in ubuntu
[13:48] <DJJeff> it did not need to get this way
[13:48] <knome> i agree with that
[13:48] <knome> however, you were told to fix your attitude multiple times
[13:49] <knome> rather than listening what others suggested you (working fixes), you continued telling them to "fix it in the repo" and flaming against microsoft and skype
[13:49] <knome> that's an unwanted attitude in the channel
[13:49] <DJJeff> working fixes help maybe 1 or 2 people
[13:49] <DJJeff> not everyone that uses ubuntu or skype
[13:50] <knome> and i did give you the last warning; then you went on, and i banned you; then in PM you told me i'm a fag and threatened with DDoS attacks
[13:50] <knome> how does that sound to you?
[13:50] <knome> for me, it doesn't sound like you just wanted to fix your skype audio
[13:51] <DJJeff> I have joined #pulseaudio on freenode a few times they always tell me to join #ubuntu
[13:51] <DJJeff> and #ubuntu always tell me to join #pulseaudio
[13:51] <DJJeff> its frustrating
[13:51] <knome> sure, i understand that, and i am not saying the bug isn't in ubuntu
[13:51] <knome> nobody told you to join #pulseaudio
[13:52] <knome> they offered you help, with fixes that should help you
[13:52] <DJJeff> why not offer the fix to everyone not just me
[13:52] <knome> i appreciate you want the fix for everybody, but that kind of "do it for me" -attitude isn't constructive.
[13:52] <knome> i haven't heard of that bug before.
[13:52] <knome> it might have been just you
[13:53] <knome> if we keep on getting reports for a single bug, sure, we will try to get them fixed
[13:53] <DJJeff> may I call your attention to
[13:53] <DJJeff> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/skype/+bug/1219407
[13:54] <knome> anyway, this discussion is not what this channel is for; unless you want to resolve your ban, i would have to ask you leave this channel as we have a non-idling policy
[13:54] <DJJeff> oh it only affects 4 people sorry
[13:56] <knome> DJJeff, if you are not willing to try to resolve your ban, please leave this channel
[13:57] <DJJeff> if ubuntu does not mean community (helping everyone)
[13:57] <DJJeff> why use it
[13:58] <DJJeff> w/e I have better things todo today like clean my room and eat
[13:58] <Pici> eating is good.
[14:40] <pmatulis_> i appear to have lost my ops status in #ubuntu-server . can someone assist?
[14:40] <Pici> pmatulis_: you aren't identified
[14:41] <pmatulis_> is it the _ in my name?  dunno
[14:41] <Myrtti> you can identify to your account no matter what your nickname is
[14:42] <Myrtti> /msg nickserv identify nickname password
[15:23] <IAmNotThatGuy> ikonia, PM
[15:23] <ikonia> always
[15:23] <IAmNotThatGuy> hehe... Waiting for your response ;P
[15:24] <ikonia> dddtest_ce2fe: hello
[15:27] <ikonia> !idle > dddtest_ce2fe
[18:48] <Pici> I would have sort of liked for some of these things to have come to normally uneventful IRCC meetings, but I'm glad that they were brought up.
[18:57] <ikonia> what stuff ?
[18:58] <Pici> Check our mailing list
[18:58] <IdleOne> http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32
[18:58] <IdleOne> that ^
[18:58] <Pici> or that
[18:59] <ikonia> I'd feel a lot more "open" to it if it was from an operator who was active
[19:00] <tsimpson> I don't see how that make any difference
[19:00] <ikonia> I do
[19:00] <ikonia> as it's dealing with it on a personal level day to day
[19:00] <tsimpson> and I never did that?
[19:00] <LjL> maybe some operators are no longer so active because they can't stand to see some ugly things happening over and over
[19:00] <ikonia> there appears to be some valid points, but there are others which seem to be an idealic world where everyone can be talked down rather than the spate of utter idiots trying to waste time
[19:00] <LjL> besides, it's hardly signed by just timpson
[19:01] <ikonia> I'm not calling out tsimpson directly,
[19:01] <tsimpson> ikonia: the point you should extract from the letter is that we should *try*
[19:01] <ikonia> tsimpson: I don't disagree
[19:01] <ikonia> but there is the flip side of it where we should not have to waste months of abuse trying with some people and jumping through hoops
[19:01] <ikonia> it needs a better balance, I fully agree
[19:02] <IdleOne> I know I am not as active as I used to be, but I think I am still active enough to see the shortcomings this team has been experiencing.
[19:02] <Pici> I think its perfectly fine that it came from people who aren't as active as they used to be.  I'm actually glad that someone "on the outside" was able to make those sort of observations.
[19:02] <ikonia> but it's sad to see "an open letter" rather than a discussion, and more so from two people who are not active in the core channels seeing the utter spate of idiots of late
[19:03] <ikonia> and as opposed to "know one questioning" that's just nonsense
[19:03] <tsimpson> the letter is to provoke discussion, and it seem to be working
[19:03] <ikonia> not really, I'm a bit dissapointed in it
[19:03] <ikonia> I feel some points pretty insulting
[19:03] <ikonia> such as "no-one questions"
[19:03] <ikonia> when I've had to justify / explain core issues in detail over a period of months
[19:03] <ikonia> becuase "it's been questioned"
[19:04] <tsimpson> I'm not surprised you feel that way, but please try and detach yourself from it personally and view it as a comment on the culture not individual actions
[19:04] <Pici> ikonia: the people who wrote that aren't IRCCers and are not part of some of the more recent discussions that have happened as a result of operator actions
[19:04] <ikonia> Pici: they are still listed in the ops team
[19:05] <ikonia> why are they not active, sharing the load
[19:05] <ikonia> I don't disagree with some of the points I'm reading
[19:05] <Pici> ikonia: I said IRC Council, not IRC Op
[19:05] <ikonia> I don't appreciate some of them either
[19:05] <ikonia> Pici: this isn't recent
[19:05] <ikonia> this is been a long time
[19:05] <IdleOne> I'm sorry but I find your comments here to be very insulting to me personally
[19:05] <ikonia> I find a lot of things questioned / debated for months
[19:06] <ikonia> IdleOne: why is that
[19:06] <Pici> I don't like to read them because they reflect poorly on my job as a council member, but I'm glad that someone had the courage to bring them up.
[19:06] <ikonia> http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32
[19:06] <ikonia> oops
[19:06] <ikonia> sorry, slippage
[19:06] <IdleOne> because you seem to be focusing on jussi and tsimpson as the sole signatories. I think my activity in this team is enough that my opinion should carry some weight on the issues raised in the letter.
[19:07] <ikonia> IdleOne: not at all
[19:07] <IdleOne> but like tsimpson I am not surprised at your reaction
[19:07] <ikonia> why - it's an open letter
[19:08] <ikonia> why have the people writing this letter not spoken to people when this happens
[19:08] <tsimpson> well I have
[19:08] <tsimpson> a few time
[19:08] <tsimpson> +s
[19:08] <LjL> i have, then i didn't sign this one, but hey
[19:08] <Pici> tsimpson: you have indeed.
[19:09] <ikonia> sorry, I just find this poor that there is no discussion within the team/council it's straight to an open letter
[19:09] <tsimpson> internal discussion hasn't seemed to have gotten us anywhere
[19:09] <ikonia> what "fear" is there that is being exposed
[19:09] <Pici> fear?
[19:09] <ikonia> I've not seen any internal discussion
[19:09] <tsimpson> a more open discussion within the entire community may, hopefully
[19:09] <ikonia> we.d like to expose that there.s a fear within the council of the vocal minority.
[19:10] <Pici> tsimpson has brought it up in this channel a few times. If I were him, I might want to bring it to the mailing list as a next step.
[19:10] <ikonia> so this letter is stating there is a fear of a vocal minority I assume within the ops team
[19:10] <LjL> maybe you haven't looked, because seriously, a number of people have been unhappy with many things that have been going on, and they've pointed them out, more or less vigorously, to the people involved and/or ircc members
[19:11] <ikonia> LjL: I try to look in as often as possible, but I'd be surprised if I've just missed every time this is raised
[19:11] <ikonia> and I'd expect to be spoke to if someone had a problem with my own actions,
[19:11] <tsimpson> perhaps you just haven't thought there was a problem
[19:12] <ikonia> not at all, I know I've spoken to you personally tsimpson about some issues
[19:12] <tsimpson> I've spoken out a number of times on actions I've seen as too harsh, and you were a part of the discussions on at least some of those times
[19:12] <ikonia> I'm certainly not remembering any, but I'm not doubting you
[19:15] <ikonia> do you have suggestions of what you want to see happen ?
[19:15] <ikonia> (as in how to actually get what you want to see in place)
[19:15] <tsimpson> I would like to see us all, collectively, to put in a conscious effort when dealing with people
[19:16] <ikonia> ok - in that case I'd like to see us "all" participate in the channels
[19:16] <tsimpson> I'm not suggesting some kind of policy, we tried that and it didn't work out
[19:16] <ikonia> spreading the load so the volume of problem users is spread out more
[19:16] <tsimpson> we need to actually make the effort to try
[19:17] <Pici> I think that it would be good to let ourselves be okay with asking for and getting criticisms about how we're handling issues.
[19:17] <bazhang> of course
[19:18] <Pici> And not needing to go to an IRCCer about an action that someone else disagreed with.
[19:18] <bazhang> some context would help
[19:18] <IdleOne> bazhang: http://tsimpson.ubottu.com/blog/archives/32
[19:18] <bazhang> otherwise I will think it's all my fault
[19:18] <bazhang> IdleOne, yes, read it
[19:19] <bazhang> Goddard, and what else
[19:19] <Pici> uh, I get pm's every once in a while saying things like "Did you see that guy that IdleOne was dealing with? why did they get banned for 2 weeks/why did we let them off with just a warning/etc.  Can you talk to them about that?"
[19:20] <Pici> "IdleOne" was just an random op I picked
[19:21] <IdleOne> I accept all the blame for my mistakes
[19:21] <bazhang> Goddard, then the death threat guy, any others?
[19:22] <Pici> I'm not going to point to specific examples.
[19:22] <tonyyarusso> So, having been on hiatus for a while, an observation:  We tend to cycle between extremes, and have a hard time finding the appropriate middle.  The reason many people tend to go to the authoritative extreme is because the last round of softer approaches was ridiculously so, and did literally involve coddling known trolls for months on end, and that's both maddening and exhausting.  So, in urging people to take the softer approach ...
[19:22] <bazhang> so if we've been talked to, or not has no relation to being one of the overly harsh ops
[19:22] <tonyyarusso> ... (which I think is reasonable), you first have to convince them that you mean doing so within sane limitations - that you're actually asking for people to have the 60-second sort of conversations with disruptive users, not the 6-month battles.
[19:27] <tsimpson> when I was a IRCC member we tried to solve some of these issues by introducing policies, a whole bunch of them. I thought it was the right way to go at the time, but I've now come to the conclusion that we don't need more rules  we just need to be more thoughtful about how we choose to enforce them
[19:27] <Pici> tsimpson: +10
[19:30] <DJones> Policies are ok to a point, but at the end of the day, it comes down to common sense
[19:31] <bazhang> is ldunn even part of Ubuntu project any longer?
[19:33] <IdleOne> enough that he cared to sign the letter
[19:33] <DJones> I don't think it matters who has signed that email or what their involvement is
[19:34] <bazhang> that's not really what I was getting at
[19:34] <bazhang> perhaps I should clarify
[19:36] <DJones> If somebody who was on the banned from UBuntu channels due past abuse had signed it, it should still be taken taken seriously (not to say tsimpson should be on the permaban list :) )
[19:37] <tsimpson> if a freenode staffer agrees with it, I don't see a problem in letting them sign it
[19:38] <bazhang> how would they know about it, and none of the rest of us were approached to sign it
[19:38] <Pici> I don't think it really matters
[19:38] <Pici> personally
[19:38] <tsimpson> bazhang: some people were
[19:39] <DJones> bazhang: Is somebody like HFSPlus had sent a similar email to the mailing list, it should still be looked at and considered on a current basis
[19:39] <IdleOne> Doesn't matter if the letter was sent anonymously. The point is not who signed or who didn't. The point is there is what seems to be a culture of shoot first. This is not what this community was built on and we need to get back to the fundamentals of what we were built on.
[19:40] <DJones> That was what I was trying to say
[19:40] <bazhang> tsimpson, I was not, leading me to believe I am the one under discussion, even though you have *never* approached me/Pm'd /etc the entire time I have been an operator, stretching back nearly 6 some years now
[19:41] <IdleOne> If anyone feels this letter is directed at them personally, maybe it is because they see some of the issues raised in the letter in themselves.
[19:41] <tsimpson> I made it clear in the letter that it's not about any specific person
[19:41] <bazhang> IdleOne, I dont feel that for a second
[19:42] <Pici> then don't worry about it.
[19:42] <IdleOne> ^
[19:42] <bazhang> the days of Seveas, was more of a total wild west approach
[19:42] <Pici> yee haw
[19:42] <bazhang> and thats the roots
[19:43] <IdleOne> and that was changed
[19:44] <bazhang> getting back to the roots seems like going back in time to the days of that
[19:44] <tsimpson> I didn't say we should go back to anything
[19:45] <bazhang> "a culture of shoot first"
[19:45] <tsimpson> we have just become more and more rigid in enforcing rules by taking authoritative action
[19:50] <DJones> As ops, at times, we do need to step back, give a question a minute or two to discern the intent before removing what we think is a troll
[19:51] <bazhang> yep
[19:51] <DJones> Spam/deliberate trolling excepted
[19:51] <bazhang> if it's someone like llckfan who does it network wide, it's an easy call
[19:52] <Pici> Just because someone is calling someone else a troll in the channel, doesn't mean its really the case.
[19:52] <Pici> I've seen a lot of that lately.
[19:53] <Pici> Like for new users asking a lot of questions.
[19:53] <DJones> Thats not a nick I recognise, so network wide issues are diffulties
[19:53] <bazhang> troll seems to have been twisted to "someone I dont like"
[19:53] <LjL> trolling *is* deliberate. if we think someone is a troll but after pondering an additional 10 seconds, we start suspecting maybe there's possibly a non-deliberate-trolling reason for what they're doing, then just kicking them out makes no sense. on the *other* hand, it *also* makes no sense to have to follow 12 policies and give someone 12 chances before leaving them out for a long time, when it *is* indeed clear they're a troll. tonyyarusso, you see,
[19:54] <LjL> working in extremes is the opposite of using common sense - sometimes you're too soft, sometimes you're too harsh, but both times you're being extreme
[19:55] <ikonia> LjL: thats the right balance, but it's hard and a lot of what goes on is harder to see unless you actually ask
[19:55] <ikonia> the ammount of times I ask politly "hey, could you please tone down the language" in ubuntu to try to be human and polite rather than fire a bot and then get a pm saying "fuck you" - at that point, what's the point
[19:55] <ikonia> but that pm and "fuck you" response isn't seen as you try to do it politely and discreetly
[19:55] <ikonia> then if you do it in the channel, you end up making a drama
[19:56] <ikonia> then if you forward them to ops instead of doing it in the channel, it becomes agressive
[19:56] <ikonia> so to minimise it if you send a clear direct message in channel - it's seen a authorative and that's bad
[19:57] <tsimpson> then you continue to talk to them in private, if things get worse set a +q etc
[19:58] <tsimpson> my point being, you don't have to reach straight for the ban-cannon
[19:58] <tsimpson> sometimes it's needed, sometimes not
[19:58] <Pici> And if one does end up setting a ban, putting a few words on the tracker is immensely helpful.
[19:58] <ikonia> this is why I'm raising if people where more active they would see this more
[19:59] <Pici> tsimpson: also, THANK YOU for bringing up the "an operator can only remove their own bans" thing.
[19:59] <Pici> I've mentioned it a bunch of a times, but no one listens
[19:59] <ikonia> it's easy to sit while not participating and say "we should be better" but unless your activly participating you don't see a lot of the first time abuse that is thrown at you
[19:59] <tsimpson> Pici: right, it's an old custom of ours, and it's time it went away
[19:59] <ikonia> Pici: that was put to bed ages ago, anyone can remove anyone elses bans ? why is that being questioned
[20:00] <Pici> ikonia: because some people still say that here.
[20:00] <ikonia> it went away a long time ago, I've not seen anyone use that for a long time
[20:00] <ikonia> I've not seen it at all
[20:00] <LjL> Pici, well, if A is personally not comfortable with removing B's bans, i think that's their right. of course, if other ops C, D and E somehow come to the conclusion that they're bound by that, too... that's no good
[20:00] <tsimpson> really, you've never seen this channel be silent when someone comes in while an op is pinged in -team?
[20:00] <Pici> LjL: agreed.
[20:00] <tsimpson> really?
[20:01] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, not unless that op knows the history and they would rather they dealt with it
[20:01] <ikonia> which I don't see as a bad thing
[20:01] <tsimpson> that's what the bantracker is for, so you can document that history
[20:01] <ikonia> that's just idealistic
[20:01] <tsimpson> not if we actually use it
[20:01] <LjL> i find it very practical
[20:01] <ikonia> if someone knows the history it makes sense for them to be involved/discussed
[20:01] <Pici> For problem users, it makes more sense really.
[20:02] <tsimpson> ikonia: right, but when they aren't around and this channel remains silent because no one dares deal with another's ban does not make sense to me
[20:02] <ikonia> I've never seen that at all
[20:02] <tsimpson> I have
[20:02] <ikonia> I've not seen "Im not touching that, it's $A's ban"
[20:02] <LjL> the bantracker is a good, useful thing, and personally i'm VERY thankful to tsimpson in particular for working on it, and i've got to say, i honestly find it out of place to "accuse" him of not being around yet signing the open letter, because, he was around for a long time, he's still around behind the scenes, he works on things that matter, and he observes people's behaviors. what more could you ask for?
[20:03] <tsimpson> ikonia: no, it's a silent thing
[20:03] <ikonia> LjL: I'm thankful for him also, the tools are superb, but that doesn't mean not being active in the channel is not valid or being aware of what's going on
[20:04] <Pici> So.. you agree?
[20:04] <ikonia> agree with what
[20:04] <Pici> nm
[20:04]  * LjL throws some double negations at Pici
[20:04] <ikonia> sorry, I worded that poor
[20:05] <DJones> It is a silent thing, there are times when I've seen a known problematic user join -ops to discuss issues that I've not know the background to, so I've not been prepared to get involved, I'm sure I'm not the only person who's done that
[20:05] <ikonia> I meant because he's working on the tool doesn't mean he's active in the channels, and therefore not seeing/getting the number of issues that have been around recently.
[20:05] <tsimpson> the only reason I'm less active is because I really don't like the culture that has grown up in the IRC team
[20:05] <bazhang> I never touch -offtopic bans, as I dont have access there.
[20:05] <tsimpson> but I do watch and I do notice
[20:05] <LjL> not being active in the channels doesn't necessarily mean he's not looking at them, either
[20:05] <LjL> that's an assumption you're making
[20:05] <ikonia> LjL: no, of cours enot
[20:05] <ikonia> LjL: I'm not making any assumption
[20:05] <ikonia> but I am seeing him not deal with the users
[20:05] <ikonia> maybe set an example
[20:05] <Pici> so?
[20:06] <ikonia> but joinin gthe channel, participating in the channel and showing how to handle users pm;ing you saying I'll kill you muther you fucker
[20:06] <ikonia> while you calmly try to catalyise
[20:06] <ikonia> lead by example,
[20:06] <bazhang> tsimpson, you seem to be suggesting that you yourself are not part of all this
[20:07] <Pici> Can we please stop sticking it on tsimpson.
[20:07] <LjL> Pici: do you mean i should remove that "kick me" sticker too? :(
[20:07] <ikonia> I'm not the same goes for jussi too
[20:08] <tsimpson> bazhang: no I'm not, I even acknowledged fault in the letter
[20:08] <Pici> ikonia: What about IdleOne?
[20:08] <ikonia> tsimpson: I'm genuinly sorry if it comes across as prodding at you, that's not the actual intent, I agree with a lot of what you are saying in the letter, but I don't agree with part of it and I feel you don't see parts of it by not participating in the hcannel
[20:09] <bazhang> tsimpson, rather than step back as the culture repulses/sickens/saddens you , take a more active role to directly criticize our actions, perhaps in the -team channel
[20:09] <tsimpson> you have to remember that I've actually been around a long time, and I have a good experience in what you're saying
[20:09] <tsimpson> I've received horrible message, death threats, all that
[20:09] <ikonia> I don't think you do
[20:09] <ikonia> as it's got worse
[20:09] <tsimpson> why do you not think I do?
[20:10] <tsimpson> what is your rational?
[20:10] <LjL> it's hardly got worse. we had the GNAA doing daily attacks on #ubuntu. we don't now. we have odd trolls.
[20:10] <bazhang> yes, sure, as have most of us here. you were stdin for a long time
[20:10] <tsimpson> bazhang: I am, that's what the letter is
[20:10] <Pici> Maybe its gotten easier for people to research people's names and addresses, but the same trolls existed way back when
[20:11] <ikonia> I'm happy to say I'll make more of an effort, but I also expect the same in reverse to not have to waste time or jump thorugh 200 hoops
[20:11] <ikonia> the common sense approach is good - but it needs to be applied in all ways
[20:12] <ikonia> eg: if someone joins kubuntu and ubuntu shouting "fuck you" and then joins #xubuntu - we don't wait for it to happen there becuase of "process"
[20:12] <ikonia> we mute them and speak to them
[20:12] <Pici> I think thats fine.
[20:12] <ikonia> we apply common sense in both directions
[20:12] <ikonia> I'm happy to make more of an effort in that spirit
[20:13] <ikonia> if you govern by common sense and evaluate peoples intent, I'm all up for that
[20:14] <LjL> ikonia: honestly, that's part of the reason i didn't sign this letter, although i was approached about it (the other reason being sheer laziness at making myself heard back): it sounded too "slanted" towards the more-cautious approach, while on the other hand, it has to go both ways, more caution when needed (and a cautionary approach by default is good, because we're all liable to thiking the worst in people, when we don't have had time to think about it),
[20:14] <LjL> but less silly "process" when that makes no sense.
[20:14] <ikonia> LjL: thats it,
[20:14] <ikonia> I'm all for parts of the letter, disagree with parts of it
[20:14] <ikonia> but I don't want to spend 3 weeks dealing with a user and then 3 weeks of debating with the council when the problem is clear
[20:15] <ikonia> but at the same time, give users who slip up a bit more width
[20:15] <LjL> so by all means, if it's painfully clear someone should be banned immediately, and shouldn't come back for a while - i say ban them immediately and don't let them come back. but, a bantracker entry is due, a long comment with explanation perhaps (doesn't have to be done immediately), things like that. but i'm making trivial examples here... honestly, what i too often see is lack of a common-sense, no-nonsense but respectful-of-people approach
[20:15] <ikonia> if the intent is common sense and judge the persons intent and ability to function in the channel, I'm all up for it
[20:16] <ikonia> LjL: again it's a two way stree
[20:16] <tonyyarusso> Honestly, how involved people have been lately doesn't really matter here.  I've been mostly away for quite some time, and the letter sounds exactly like the same discussions we had two or three times in past years when I was more active - the arguments have been valid on a rather ongoing, cyclical basis - we're just back at this stage of the cycle again.
[20:16] <ikonia> street
[20:16] <Pici> At least we're consistant...
[20:16] <ikonia> LjL: I also expect the same polite / respect as the person I'm talking to
[20:16] <bazhang> bad spelers
[20:17] <tsimpson> ikonia: maybe you shouldn't expect that, even if you want it
[20:17] <ikonia> why ?
[20:17] <ikonia> the guidlines of all the channels say this
[20:17] <ikonia> why should someone be excused it, more so if they are trying to discuss why they should be allowed to use the channel again
[20:17] <tsimpson> obviously there's a limit, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone who happens to join #ubuntu to embrace the code of conduct and guidelines automatically
[20:18] <ikonia> tsimpson: not at all
[20:18] <ikonia> tsimpson: people don't know / aren't aware
[20:18] <ikonia> but I don't expect, "fuck off natzi" when asked not to
[20:18] <tsimpson> so it's reasonable to expect some hostility, some rudeness, some disrespect
[20:18] <LjL> oh i think you should expect manners (at least after you have informed the person about etiquette and everything). but you should understand if someone is a bit "sensitive" after maybe they've been mistreated, or *feel* like they've been mistreated anyway, or have been picked on by ops and/or users in a "gang-up" fashion
[20:18] <Pici> And people get frustrated when they're called out for things, remember that many of them are just trying to get their Ubuntu issue fixed.
[20:18] <ikonia> and then I do'nt want 20 minutes of debate
[20:19] <tsimpson> people react like that, it's the internet age where people can (apparently) say anything they like with no consequences...
[20:19] <tsimpson> try, please
[20:19] <ikonia> Pici: exactly and if they see people trying to help, that's fine, but I don't think I should be talked to like an idiot/dirt when trying to help, no matter how upset they are
[20:19] <ikonia> they can't though
[20:19] <tsimpson> but I do accept there is a limit, and it's your personal limit
[20:19] <ikonia> there are consiquences
[20:19] <Pici> yes, there is a limit to everything.
[20:19] <ikonia> and the sooner they grasp that saying "fuck you" to a polite request the sooner they will either a.) change b.) not use the hcannel
[20:20] <Pici> agreed.
[20:20] <Pici> hopefully.
[20:20] <ikonia> to be honest, I don't care either way
[20:20] <ikonia> I don't use the channels to see that sort of langauge attitude
[20:20] <tsimpson> you should
[20:20] <ikonia> not at all
[20:20] <ikonia> it's not my position to change their view on things
[20:20] <tsimpson> you should care to bring people into the community where you can
[20:20] <ikonia> help them, guide them, sure
[20:20] <ikonia> why ?
[20:20] <ikonia> I do'nt care if they are part of the community or not
[20:21] <tsimpson> if you don't care, then what's the motivation?
[20:21] <ikonia> to help people,
[20:21] <ikonia> I'm not trying to push people to use ubuntu or join the community
[20:21] <ikonia> that's up to them if they like it and want to use it and feel comfortable with what it brings/expects
[20:21] <tsimpson> it's not pushing them for some kind of membership, each channel is its own community
[20:22] <ikonia> right, and I'll help them be part of any channel I'm in
[20:22] <ikonia> but I don't care if they don't want to
[20:22] <ikonia> and that's not just ubuntu
[20:22] <ikonia> that's any channel I'm in
[20:22] <Pici> #ubuntu should be a welcoming place, but if someone doesn't want to like Ubuntu for whatever reason, I don't think that we can really be expected to have to convince them otherwise.
[20:23] <ikonia> right,
[20:23] <Pici> Educate: yes, convince: no.
[20:23] <ikonia> I've often said "don't use ubuntu then"
[20:23] <tsimpson> well you obviously can't force someone to be a part of a community, and if they just aren't interested that's fine
[20:23] <ikonia> because it's not right for them
[20:23] <tsimpson> but, as role models and mentors for the community, we should be willing to at least try
[20:23] <ikonia> the same for the channel
[20:23] <ikonia> try "X" because this channel isn't what you need
[20:24] <tsimpson> explain to them why we have the rules we have, what the ethos is a bout
[20:24] <tsimpson> if they don't care about that, it's up to them
[20:24] <ikonia> tsimpson: it's pretty hard to say that without smirking though
[20:24] <ikonia> when the company running ubuntu doesn't really play by the same ethos
[20:24] <LjL> yeah well...
[20:24] <tsimpson> good thing we aren't the Canonical community then
[20:25] <LjL> tsimpson: how, we're not? i was sure there had been a memo about that!
[20:25] <ikonia> I'm not suggesting that, but a community the helps each other - apart from when it goes up to the top level seems pretty hard
[20:25] <ikonia> to be honest, I raised this a few weeks ago in the secret channel
[20:25] <ikonia> I looked at the fedora community / channel and it's much better
[20:26] <ikonia> yet the ops / community are much more harsh/direct with people
[20:26] <ikonia> they focus on the goals of the channel and don't allow it to slip
[20:26] <ikonia> and it flows and works really well for getting users support
[20:26] <tsimpson> that's how they choose express their community, it's not the way we want to
[20:27] <ikonia> sorry who are you speaking for
[20:27] <ikonia> who is "we"
[20:27] <IdleOne> the silent majority who is to afraid or tired of this same old discussion
[20:27] <tsimpson> the Ubuntu community at large
[20:27] <IdleOne> too*
[20:27] <ikonia> tsimpson: who says ?
[20:28] <tsimpson> says the code of conduct, says the IRC guidelines
[20:28] <ikonia> tsimpson: really ?
[20:28] <IdleOne> says the Ubuntu philosophy
[20:28] <tsimpson> says the entire ethos of Ubuntu
[20:28] <ikonia> sorry no it doesn't
[20:28] <tsimpson> what you described is not "showing humanity towards others"
[20:28] <ikonia> not it's not
[20:28] <Pici> not?
[20:29] <ikonia> it's being direct and to the point to share information clearly and focused
[20:29]  * LjL throws some more negatives at Pici in case he's out
[20:29] <ikonia> my fault, typo
[20:29] <tsimpson> well it's the very core of the Ubuntu philosophy
[20:29] <ikonia> I think we need to pause for a moment to help tomoks
[20:29] <ikonia> hi tomoks
[20:33] <ikonia> tomoks: are you there ?
[20:34] <tsimpson> it doesn't look like they're active right now
[20:35] <LjL> maybe we can kick them out on the grounds our process, despite their presence probably not causing any actual issue to us, just so they will be annoyed at us
[20:35] <LjL> oh, i'm way slow
[20:35] <ikonia> not at all
[20:35] <ikonia> change the process
[20:35]  * LjL rolls eyes
[20:36] <tsimpson> rigid enforcement of the rules
[20:36] <IdleOne> SmallR2002 has been here the entire time without being a problem.
[20:36] <ikonia> right, so then lets change that rule than
[20:36] <ikonia> the
[20:36] <LjL> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules
[20:36] <ikonia> then
[20:37] <tsimpson> specific rules aren't the problem, is how we choose to enforce them
[20:37] <ikonia> ok - how do you enforce that then
[20:37] <ikonia> eg: do nothing
[20:37] <ikonia> in that case whats the point of having it
[20:37] <ikonia> rather than put a polite message and pm to the user
[20:37] <tsimpson> I'm not talking about a specific rule, and I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about a specific rule
[20:37] <ikonia> which is what I did, remove him, and send him a message to let him know why he was removed
[20:37] <tsimpson> I'm speaking in general
[20:38] <LjL> enforce it when you have a reason to suspect the user are being malicious or whatever, and not enforce it if it's painfully clear they aren't?
[20:38] <ikonia> no, you've just pulled me up on being rigid
[20:38] <ikonia> ok, so the rule is "no idling if unless your intent is bad"
[20:38] <tsimpson> I do think you rigidly enforce the rules, and you even admired that you like that style of enforcement
[20:38] <tsimpson> I'm not talking about a specific rule, and I'm not going to be drawn into a debate about a specific rule
[20:38] <LjL> ikonia: no
[20:38] <ikonia> tsimpson: I dont admire that at all
[20:39] <tsimpson> ikonia: you said so about the fedora community
[20:39] <ikonia> no I didn't
[20:39] <ikonia> I said that I'd seen it working better - and suggested we looked at it
[20:39] <Pici> I thought thats what you said too, but maybe I misunderstood.
[20:39] <ikonia> I didn't say adopt it, or I admired it
[20:39] <ikonia> I had a reasonable size discusison in -ops-team about it and raised the negative parts of it to
[20:39] <tsimpson> you said they are more strict/harsh, and don't let the channel slip
[20:39] <tsimpson> you said it's "much better"
[20:40] <ikonia> yes
[20:40] <ikonia> the channel follows much better
[20:40] <tsimpson> so you like that style of enforcement?
[20:40] <LjL> ikonia, do you think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules means i'm allowed or even encouraged to edit that very page to make it say "I LIKE HAMSTERS A LOT!!!!!!!!!!!!"?
[20:40] <ikonia> follows....flows
[20:40] <ikonia> tsimpson: no, I think it has pros/cons
[20:40] <tsimpson> if you think it's better I assume you like it more than what I'm suggesting
[20:40] <ikonia> LjL: apologies don't follow what you're trying to say
[20:40] <tsimpson> or even what we have now
[20:41] <ikonia> the channel is certaily working better than ubuntu in terms of problem resolution and feeding things up stream - which is why I raised it after mentioning the canonical issue
[20:41] <ikonia> but as I said in the earlier discussion it has pros and cons, and we perhaps see what we can take from it (I believe I was looking at PPA problems at the time
[20:42] <tsimpson> well I think that style is not the direction we should be heading in
[20:42] <LjL> ikonia: it was a question. the right answer is "no", not in most circumstances anyway. having a rule and sometimes breaking it doesn't mean the rule is actually different from what it is - it just means it's being broken, and there may or may not have been a good reason for breaking it. spirit of the law vs letter of the law, if you like legal terms. if you decide NOT to kick out someone who's idling here because they aren't harming anybody, you are neither
[20:42] <LjL> changing nor, in this specific case, even violating the rule - you're merely ignoring the rule in this specific instance *because your common sense tells you to*
[20:42] <LjL> that's what common sense is all about
[20:43] <ikonia> LjL: ok, I see what you mean
[20:43] <LjL> perhaps the spirit of the rule could be said in an even better way : Use your common sense over anything else   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignoring_all_rules_%E2%80%93_a_beginner%27s_guide
[20:43] <ikonia> again though, I dind't see the problem in this example of removing the user with a polite message and sending him a pm to explain he's welcome back when he's active
[20:44] <tsimpson> but do you see a problem with not doing it?
[20:45] <LjL> well i see a problem. being kicked feels bad to many people, not matter what the reason. it makes you feel ousted, or unwanted. so if, all other things being equal, you can choose between kicking and not kicking... why kick? *this* is the sort of problematic behavior i too often see (especially in #ubuntu-offtopic, where i'm most active these days)
[20:45] <ikonia> tsimpson: yes, I do see a problem with it, as people have put in place a no idle policy despite it being argued against many times
[20:45] <LjL> also, when in #ubuntu-offtopic, someone "new" comes up with some idea that seems silly or inane or badly thought out to us, and one or several people gang up on them, questioning their every word, that has the same chilling effect
[20:46] <ikonia> so they are free to come up with ideas and state them publicly but others are not free to question them
[20:46] <tsimpson> I don't think that, in general, just because we have a policy means we have to enforce it 100% of the time
[20:46] <ikonia> again it's two way
[20:47] <ikonia> so then lets remove it
[20:47] <ikonia> and just say "common sense"
[20:47] <ikonia> in which case I'd be happy to let him stay
[20:48] <ikonia> I don't personally care who sits in the channel
[20:48] <tsimpson> it's not a binary choice to have a policy and enforce it 100% of the time or not have the policy at all
[20:49] <LjL> ikonia, once again i'll give you the wikipedia example and note how they have an "Ignore all rules" policy yet that's not the *only* policy they have - actually, they have a very large number. is that contradictory? maybe, but meanwhile Wikipedia is a huge sucess.
[20:49] <ikonia> it is when it's been argued MANY times and keeps coming back to "yes, that is the policy"
[20:49] <LjL> (i'm making a note here)
[20:49] <ikonia> that's not really helpful is it
[20:49] <LjL> yeah well "reserve the right" already covers that in fact
[20:49] <IdleOne> Rule has been changed. I skipped the 6 months of discussions and process and just did it.
[20:50] <ikonia> and at that point, I'm done
[20:50] <ikonia> no point having a discussion if it's just mess around time
[20:50] <tsimpson> I'm not messing around, I'm having a serious discussion with you
[20:50] <ikonia> tsimpson: I know, and I felt it valid
[20:51] <IdleOne> Like LjL just said  "reserve the right" covers the part where it is not a mandatory rule that must be enforced at all times.
[20:51] <tsimpson> I think we can put IdleOne's action there down to frustration
[20:51] <IdleOne> frustration is part of it.
[20:52] <LjL> tsimpson: no, i think it was a move to make a valid point and if we just put every bold move someone makes down to "frustration" or their "bad temper" or whatever... well, i've been there and been treated like a child enough times
[20:53] <DJones> The no-idle policy has been in for a number years, before I applied for ops in #ubuntu, it affected me, I used to idle here on the basis that it was suggested by ops at the time that I was appointed op in a loco channel that it was a good way of learning, however certain ops asked me to not idle because of confidentiality even though the channel was logged & the info was available within the hour
[20:53] <ikonia> so then why have the policy
[20:53] <tsimpson> LjL: oh, I think it's a valid point, just the act of changing the topic to state the point was motivated out of frustration (opinion)
[20:53] <ikonia> why even bother just let the ops govern with common sense
[20:54] <LjL> DJones: as a matter of fact, the channel is logged *because* that was felt to be an "acceptable compromise" between closing it down completely to outsiders and having it completely open - at the time, at least
[20:54] <LjL> ikonia: i answered that above by making a comparison with Wikipedia. what's your thought about that?
[20:54] <tsimpson> ikonia: the policies are a guide for that common sense
[20:54] <LjL> ikonia: you basically seem to be saying, either have rules, or have common sense; can't have both
[20:54] <ikonia> LjL: I don't fully get it to be honest,
[20:54] <LjL> ikonia: that leaves me perplexed
[20:55] <tsimpson> we have a concessions around which we base our choices
[20:55] <ikonia> tsimpson: why did you not have this attitude when you where on the council
[20:55] <tsimpson> *consensus
[20:55] <ikonia> what's changed it ?
[20:55] <tsimpson> time/experience
[20:55] <tsimpson> and when I was in the council, it was newly reformed
[20:55] <ikonia> ok, so looking back being driven by policy was perhaps not the best method
[20:56] <tsimpson> ikonia: I already said that
[20:56] <ikonia> thats very cool, and big of you
[20:56] <LjL> ikonia, just to be clear on this, are you saying that we can either have policies/rules, or we can use common sense, but we can't do both?
[20:56] <ikonia> LjL: not at all
[20:56] <ikonia> but the no-idle one has come up time and time again
[20:56] <bazhang> this feels like a gang up on ikonia
 when I was a IRCC member we tried to solve some of these issues by introducing policies, a whole bunch of them. I thought it was the right way to go at the time, but I've now come to the conclusion that we don't need more rules  we just need to be more thoughtful about how we choose to enforce them
[20:56] <ikonia> and keeps being pushed that it sould be forced to keep clear for channel issues
[20:57] <ikonia> (which we are abusing with this discussion possibly)
[20:57] <ikonia> if I wanted to "apply common sense" I'd be doing things like pre-emptive bans and the like
[20:57] <LjL> we really aren't
[20:57] <LjL> well, that's the problem i think - we have a very, very different definition of common sense. i think i'll go back to writing my toy bot
[20:57] <ikonia> as that is common sense,
[20:57] <tsimpson> bazhang: I can see why it looks like that, but ikonia is the one disagreeing with my points so that's why I'm debating it with him
[20:58] <ikonia> I don't feel I'm being ganged up on, I'm on a different view point on some aspets, so got to discuss it
[20:58] <DJones> LjL: -ops has been logged for a long time prior to that, if somebody had explained it as you just did at the time I was asked to leave, the op who suggested I join wouldn't have felt it necessary to apologise for asking me join and then being concerned about me getting annoyed about having been effectively kicked out
[20:58] <ikonia> LjL: we don't, I've just got burnt too many times for using it and not "following policy"
[20:58] <bazhang> tsimpson, I think the multiple others joining in is what makes it feel that way
[20:58] <ikonia> LjL: I'd like to see it just apply common sense
[20:58] <ikonia> LjL: however I get pushed back in my face on a regular occasion "we have to follow the policy/process"
[20:59] <ikonia> so I stick to the policy
[20:59] <tsimpson> bazhang: you can't blame them for expressing their opinions in the debate, and it seems like the majority of people participating take a difference stance to ikonia
[21:00] <bazhang> tsimpson, so I should join in ?
[21:00] <ikonia> LjL: I don't believe we differ on common sense, I just stick the agreed policies so it doens't get thrown back at me any more
[21:00] <ikonia> (beyond this discussion obviously)
[21:00] <tsimpson> bazhang: absolutely
[21:00] <DJones> LjL: It didn't bother me, I'm here now, so hopefully that shows that the community is more important
[21:00] <tsimpson> please do
[21:01] <tsimpson> ikonia: maybe it's not beyond this discussion, if you feel that you've been forced to enforce rules when common sense would disagree
[21:01] <LjL> ikonia: well i really hate the "we have to follow the process" mentality, except, however, that process *is* useful as a sort of "checklist" to make sure you aren't really missing something, like a possible reason why someone might not actually be malicious, but in good faith. i think, to be honest, the issue some here have seen and are complaining about is that the process is not followed in cases when following it seemed warranted by their common sense.
[21:01] <LjL> in other words, people being "man-handled" without their seeming to deserve it.
[21:01] <ikonia> tsimpson: the ammount of times I'd have done things different but couldn't because I know / have been told "well, that's not the policy"
[21:02] <ikonia> LjL: I don't disagree, a guidlines, a marker, but it's used against the team so often, it's easier to stick to it so there is no room for contention
[21:02] <LjL> ikonia, i know how that is... trolls keep asking you "which rule am i breaking? tell me!" etc, but we must NOT fall into that trap
[21:02] <ikonia> LjL: actually more exteme examples, but yes, you get th epoint
[21:03] <ikonia> so that's why if the policy is agreed on - I stick to it
[21:03] <ikonia> even the ones I don't agree with
[21:03] <ikonia> as I'll argue it at decision time, if I lose, I'll stick to it
[21:03] <ikonia> as it's what the team agreed on
[21:03] <k1l> imho we are wasting alot of empathy for absolut trolls, where its clear form the start where that is going.
[21:03] <ikonia> k1l: %500000
[21:03] <LjL> ikonia: but then what happens when someone is actually not breaking any policy, when you read it literally, but it's still pretty clear (according to any op's common sense) their behavior is being obnoxious? you can't act because the process won't allow that?
[21:03] <LjL> that just won't cut it
[21:04] <ikonia> but that's to the detriment of the ones that are not a problem and perhaps get treated too harsh
[21:04] <tsimpson> k1l: I don't think so, there are times when someone is clearly trolling and no one is suggesting that we try and talk them out of it
[21:04] <k1l> and afterwards there is not enough patience to deal the ones who could be brought to "the right path"
[21:04] <ikonia> LjL: I either a.) act and then take weeks of dicussion / debate / pointless arguing about you didn't give me 10 warnings b.) do nothing - which is stupid
[21:05] <tsimpson> k1l: I don't like the excuse of "there are trolls out there, therefore everyone is a troll"
[21:05] <k1l> tsimpson: that is not what i want to say
[21:06] <tsimpson> k1l: I know, but it's the flash assumption that someone is a troll that's part of the issue
[21:06] <k1l> i just think we are doing effort where no effort should be done.
[21:06] <tsimpson> there are cases where we know someone is just being a troll, and we can deal with them swiftly
[21:06] <LjL> tsimpson, honestly i take a bit of a different stance about that situation. to me, the marker line is "are they doing it in good faith?" (there are many mental tests to do about that - maybe they're just acting out of frustration? maybe they don't know the rules? maybe they don't understand we're not joking around?) - but when i *do* come to the conclusion they're acting in bad faith, i don't really think it's my duty to talk them out of it, although of
[21:06] <LjL> course, if it seems warranted, i'll do it
[21:07] <tsimpson> LjL: I didn't say we should be talking trolls out of it, the opposite in fact
[21:07] <LjL> tsimpson: okay i might have misread
[21:07] <LjL> oh, yeah i think i have
[21:08] <tsimpson> don't let the policy stop you from protecting the channel, but also don't let it force you to take action when you can (realistically) avoid it
[21:08] <LjL> agreed
[21:09] <k1l> its a fact that some people (again, i am not saying all of them are that way) just make trouble to make trouble. i dont know why they do this but i dont think we should put effort in that. but there are people who maybe got into emotions or its just some misunderstanding and that lead to an issue which brings the irc team on the screen. in that case we need alot effort to handle the situation that i the best case no further action is needed.
[21:10] <ikonia> tsimpson: that's the dream...but we are so far away from that at the moment and have been for a long time, it's very hard to come back from
[21:11] <ikonia> sadly - and not a pop at you, but a big part of that stems from the previous council
[21:11] <tsimpson> yes, it's hard
[21:11] <ikonia> (certainly for me)
[21:11] <tsimpson> it's really not an easy task
[21:11] <tsimpson> but we should not let that stop us from trying
[21:11] <ikonia> no, and again, that isn't a pop at you, that's just partly trying to explain
[21:13] <tsimpson> we have got to a point where we don't really try any more, and it's understandable
[21:14] <ikonia> I've said I'm happy to put in a push, as long as it's both ways common sense, and supported by the council
[21:14] <tsimpson> we joke when people apply to become ops, "what you *want* to be an op?"
[21:14] <tsimpson> because it's a really hard job
[21:14] <tsimpson> it's taxing and it can really get you down sometimes
[21:14] <tsimpson> my hope when writing the letter wasn't to get some kind of rule change, but to just (re)light a fire under us all
[21:15] <tsimpson> to get back the passion we had when we first came to the IRC team
[21:15] <LjL> wait so that wasn't just my chair being warm? crap
[21:15] <ikonia> language LjL
[21:15] <Pricey> !language
[21:15] <ikonia> (I am only joking)
[21:16] <k1l> tsimpson: yes, sometimes you need a reminder, when you fall into automatisms
[21:16] <DJones> LjL: Chair? Remember its coming up to Bonfire night in the uk, thats not just the chair thats on fire :)
[21:18] <ikonia> do you think it's worth actually having / setting a short team meeting to discuss this and get everyone on the same page as much as possible
[21:18] <LjL> oh i don't find it even remotely likely that such a meeting would be short
[21:19] <ikonia> rather than an adhoc discussion
[21:19] <ikonia> we live in hope
[21:19] <ikonia> or maybe just a message from the council after they have had a bit of time to think about it
[21:19] <tsimpson> it should be an ongoing discussion
[21:20] <tsimpson> we should be less afraid to question other operators actions
[21:20] <tsimpson> not necessarily integrate them, just ask questions
[21:21] <AlanBell> evening all
[21:21] <Pricey> I'm barely through the backlog but this line concerns me: 19:05:07 <+ikonia> why are they not active, sharing the load
[21:23] <DJones> Pici: Chaning the topic a bit, going back to yesterdays query about 12.10 upgrades, http://fridge.ubuntu.com/2013/03/19/changes-in-ubuntu-releases-decided-by-the-ubuntu-technical-board/ "The plan here is to change that, so that a user of Ubuntu 12.10 could directly update to Ubuntu 13.10 or 14.04 LTS."
[21:25] <Pricey> ikonia: Is there too much load and not enough ops?
[21:25] <ikonia> Pricey: it's hard to guage
[21:25] <Pricey> ikonia: I want an exact figure ;)
[21:26] <ikonia> Pricey: the wording wasn't great, I was trying to make a point that I wasn't happy being critiqued from an ivory tower by people who are ops but do'nt actually provide support/op-support in the channels they are in
[21:26] <Unit193> Main channels seem to have more, secondary don't always seem to have neough, but that may just be what I see.
[21:26] <ikonia> Pricey: in terms of actual work load, it of course varies, possible a few extra hands wouldn't help
[21:26] <LjL> good thing then we basically have a policy of bringing new ops in at every release regardless of anything! i'm relieved
[21:27] <ikonia> LjL: that is another "policy" though
[21:27] <ikonia> it drives me around the bend
[21:27] <ikonia> rather than common sense pull in as needed
[21:27] <ikonia> we've pulled in people who haven't done anything in the channel
[21:27] <ikonia> just for the sake of it
[21:27] <Pricey> ikonia: Understood. I was just wondering if there were perhaps some subtext. Ubuntu's always been a meritocracy afaik, the people who do the work make the decisions.
[21:28] <ikonia> Pricey: it's far from that
[21:28] <k1l> what about we change the issue-handling in this channel here? like saying (if possible) another op handles the user who comes in here?
[21:29] <ikonia> k1l: that's been tried before and didn't really work out well
[21:29] <ikonia> admitidly only for a short time
[21:29] <tsimpson> isn't it a prerequisite of becoming a channel op that we pool from the active users of the channel?
[21:30] <k1l> because i think that is a hard time for both sides. the user who got kicked/banned and the op who should stay calm, too.
[21:30] <ikonia> no
[21:30] <AlanBell> recruitment isn't the issue though, is it?
[21:30] <ikonia> AlanBell: not really - that's my fault for using it as an example of process
[21:31] <AlanBell> we moved to a cadence in line with release cycles partly so that IRC engages a bit more with the wider Ubuntu development cycle, I don't think that is a bad thing, but we could change it
[21:31] <LjL> ikonia: (i was being slightly sarcastic about the goodness of that policy, in case that wasn't clear)
[21:31] <ikonia> AlanBell: I wouldn't concern yourself with it, it's my fault for pulling it up as a process "I" don't like
[21:31] <ikonia> LjL: I missed it a little
[21:31] <AlanBell> part of the reason we started doing it on a regular basis was that people applied to join the teams and were left hanging indefinitely
[21:32] <ikonia> AlanBell: pros/cons to it, as you say it's not the real issue being discussed, it was my bad reference
[21:32] <AlanBell> ok
[21:33] <tsimpson> still they should be active in the channel to actually be accepted, I think
[21:33] <ikonia> tsimpson: that is discussed, I know I've commented on "non-active" users at review time
[21:34] <ikonia> I was perhaps being a little harsh on it as a process as "I" personally don't like it
[21:35] <tsimpson> either way, new ops won't help when they are taught (by example) bad habits
[21:38] <LjL> you shouldn't teach a new dog old tricks?
[21:39] <tsimpson> only the really good ones
[21:40] <genii> Holy crap. A lot of backscroll to read!
[21:40] <AlanBell> "The IRC Council, as a relatively new council" - 2 years!
[21:41] <Pricey> AlanBell: 2?
[21:41] <AlanBell> yeah, we are about to expire
[21:42] <AlanBell> I was going to send a mail to the list announcing an election, but I will now re-word it a bit so it doesn't look like it was caused by the open letter :)
[21:53] <genii> I just finished catching up now. There are many good points in the letter, that we tend to fall into a groove of writing some users off instead of actually engaging them in dialogue and seeing if the situation can be resolved in this way first. As for ops removing other ops bans.. I usually hesitate to do this when the user is in -ops, mostly because I have this feeling ( perhaps irrational) that it is "their" ban.
[21:54] <tsimpson> it's a feeling may of us have, and it's something we should try and shake off
[21:54] <LjL> tsimpson, for next time, since AlanBell says this open letter comes as a bit of a surprise, maybe you should first send an open letter informing the team that you intent to send an open letter to the team
[21:55] <AlanBell> like a pre-meeting :)
[21:55] <LjL> don't we all love bureaucracy? Jono Bacon does for sure! wait, isn't the letter partly about less bureaucracy? i'm confused now
[21:55] <Pricey> genii: What would happen if you made a mistake, unbanned someone that shouldn't be unbanned etc. ?
[21:55] <tsimpson> LjL: but wouldn't the open letter informing the team of my intent to send an open letter be, itself, a surprise?
[21:56] <AlanBell> it is fine, really, it did come as a bit of a surprise, and the timing is mildly inconvenient, but it is always fine for someone to take the time to write up their thoughts long form and send it like that
[21:56] <genii> Pricey: I suppose the worst case is they go and do something else immediately that earns them another ban
[21:56] <LjL> tsimpson: hmm, that's a tough nut to crack
[21:56] <genii> And possibly the op whose ban i lifted gets pissed
[21:56] <Pricey> genii: Yeah, that last bit was what I was after.
[21:58] <DJones> genii: Maybe the answer to that is for agreement from 2 alternate ops to lift a ban set by a 3rd op when one doesn't feel comfortable removing it on their own
[21:58] <IdleOne> IF a ban is well documented in the ban tracker there should be no reason for anyone to get upset.
[21:58] <Pricey> DJones: Are you not happy with mistakes happenning?
[21:59] <LjL> DJones: oh lord, yes, let's come up with a process
[21:59] <IdleOne> heh
[21:59] <LjL> maybe we should make a weighted average of some sort
[21:59] <LjL> actually, i'm writing a thing to make my bot do that, if you want it later... ;(
[22:00] <AlanBell> mistakes do happen, but unreverseable mistakes almost never happen on IRC
[22:00] <Pricey> DJones: See, I look at that and think "WHYYYYYYYYYYy?!"
[22:00] <LjL> ^
[22:01] <DJones> Thats life, mistake do happen, but if one op doesn't feel happy removing a ban, there are normally more than one available to discuss and ask for a 2nd opinion before removing. Thats what I'm trying to say
[22:01] <genii> I think maybe the best thing is to bring it up in -team , if no one objects to the ban being lifted then it gets removed
[22:01] <Pricey> DJones: I think you're missing the point. I don't think ops are happy dealing with "other ops business", because they're scared if they make a mistake vengeance will be had. I don't see why else.
[22:01] <IdleOne> which is what we already do mostly. But none of us should feel like we can't remove a ban because someone else owns that ban.
[22:02] <DJones> Pricey: That wasn't something I was considering
[22:02] <DJones> genii: Thank you, thats what I was suggesting
[22:03] <DJones> Pricey: You seem to be thinking something completely different to what I was trying to say
[22:03] <LjL> DJones, if an op doesn't feel happy removing a ban that was set by someone else, that's their prerogative. whatever rules people are going to write down, they aren't forcing me to remove a ban i don't want to remove :P they can hit the -b button themselves, too!
[22:04] <LjL> but, if there is a general "climate", that keeps fueling itself, where people feel they "shouldn't" remove someone else's ban...
[22:04] <LjL> that should be addressed, and the climate changed
[22:06] <DJones> LjL: I don't disagree with that, its not always about being unhappy at removing a ban, but maybe a 2nd opinion on a discussion about a ban can be useful
[22:07] <tsimpson> but a discussion shouldn't be *required* to remove a ban if you're confident about it
[22:07] <tsimpson> there are times when the original op just isn't around and someone else can step in instead
[22:08] <genii> tsimpson: I always feel like I'm stepping on someone's toes though if I were to do that
[22:08] <tsimpson> and there are times when the original op isn't best placed to deal with the issue, if the user feels some bias
[22:08] <DJones> tsimpson: My point exactly, if you're not confident, then a 2nd opinion is helpful
[22:08] <LjL> DJones: okay but we don't need a rule for that. if you would like a second opinion, ask for one
[22:08] <tsimpson> genii: and that's what needs to change :)
[22:09] <genii> Actually what I think we need is to hold occasional -ops meetings like now and discuss more than we currently do
[22:10] <IdleOne> like the last meeting this past Sunday?
[22:10] <IdleOne> was it Sunday?
[22:10] <LjL> IdleOne: really, i don't think most ops feel that the IRCC meetings are actual "ops team" meetings
[22:10] <genii> IdleOne: I didn't know there was one. Where do these things get posted anyplace, or on amailing list or something?
[22:11] <LjL> genii, usually they get both an announcement *and* minutes on the ubuntu-irc mailing list :P i don't like to suggest you get more coffee, but!
[22:11] <genii> LjL: Yes, I meant more like the ops having a meeting somewhat like what we are doing right now, but regularly
[22:11] <AlanBell> fridge calendar, wiki page, gets mentioned in -team, minutes to the list  etc
[22:11] <IdleOne> Well, that is something the IRCC needs to work on a little. Letting the team know when the meeting is going to happen
[22:12] <IdleOne> LjL: if the IRCC is not in part an -ops meeting then I have no idea what it is for
[22:12] <IdleOne> IRCC metting*
[22:12] <AlanBell> I normally start it with #startmeeting IRC Team Meeting
[22:12] <LjL> IdleOne: i don't think i can blame them much on that. but, what i vaguely remember noticing last time i was at a meeting was that there was a slight feeling that non-IRCC-members opinions were tolerated but not really welcome and counted for very little. maybe it's just an impression, but that might explain why a few ops don't seem interested
[22:13] <AlanBell> huh
[22:14] <IdleOne> LjL: If we don't go to the meeting and give our opinions the IRCC can't consider them at all.
[22:14] <AlanBell> that may have been some specific topic, at whatever meeting it was, but generally I don't think it is particularly exclusive
[22:14] <LjL> AlanBell, i'm admittedly talking about sensations, don't take it as an accusation against the council. it could have been some specific topic, sure.
[22:16] <genii> So if i understand this correctly... IRCC meetings are also supposed to be attended by the operators? Because I always figured it was IRCC members-only type meeting.
[22:16] <LjL> genii, i believe anyone can attend and speak, of course, ops team members are encouraged to do so
[22:17] <LjL> but yes, i think your interpretation of it may be typical of a few ops
[22:17] <AlanBell> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2013-September/001615.html
[22:17] <Myrtti> genii: I  always try to attend
[22:17] <AlanBell> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2013-January/001596.html
[22:18] <AlanBell> yeah, I have been a bit poor at pre-announcing the meetings on the mailing list
[22:21] <genii> Dialogue is good :)  I would stay longer tonight because the discussion is enlightening but I have to get going home now. May connect back in a couple hours or so however.
[22:24] <AlanBell> fridge calendar is *the* way to find out when meetings are happening
[22:32] <jrib> i would like some examples (feel free to anonymize them) of behavior that is being discussed
[22:35] <LjL> eh, hard to anonymize anything
[22:39] <jrib> this is true
[22:39] <jrib> but I fear not all of us envision the same scenarios when we speak in general terms
[22:39] <LjL> yes yes you're right
[22:40] <LjL> i'm looking for something in the bantracker but i'm failing at it
[22:45] <LjL> jrib: took me a while for something that happened 5 days ago and i should remember about. anyway, this is the latest example for me that i found a bit glaring... http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/10/26/%23ubuntu.html#t19:11 look for the user "wN", keep in mind they joined with a redhat cloak, then look at http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/10/26/%23ubuntu-ops.html (near the start) - might also help to grep "<wN>" in your own logs for any previous help the user had
[22:45] <LjL> offered, or other things
[22:46] <jrib> looking
[22:51] <AlanBell> so, who wants to be on the next IRC Council?
[22:52] <IdleOne> I do I do!
[22:52] <IdleOne> wait
[22:52] <IdleOne> I read that, who wants cereal?
[22:52] <AlanBell> it is a high fibre position
[22:52] <IdleOne> hahaha
[22:52] <IdleOne> lol
[22:53] <jrib> i've always thought about the ops adopting a policy of just using binds instead of ubottu for things like !language, !repeat, !enter.  A lot of people just seem to take offense at the bot usage for that sort of stuff
[22:53] <LjL> AlanBell: i thought that was obvious from his inquiring about these matters...
[22:53] <LjL> jrib is nominating himself
[22:53] <jrib> nay
[22:53] <LjL> jrib: don't be shy
[22:54] <AlanBell> nominations will be opening shortly
[22:56] <Myrtti> O
[22:56] <Myrtti> I'm so happy I consider myself ineligible for it
[22:56]  * AlanBell checks the rules
[22:56] <Myrtti> I shall use that as my excuse to save myself from the purgatory.
[22:57]  * AlanBell thinks there is no rule against Myrttis
[22:57] <Myrtti> I knows ^______^
[22:57] <jrib> there may actually be one rule that requires at least one Myrtti if I'm not mistaken
[22:58]  * AlanBell adjusts the rules
[23:00] <Myrtti> yeah, if someone gets the idea of nominating me, I'll just most kindly decline.
[23:00] <IdleOne> So, there is a chance of you accepting the nomination
[23:00] <LjL> that was "kindly", not "likely"
[23:01] <IdleOne> I know. I was hoping she didn't :)
[23:01] <Myrtti> you really don't want me as your glorious leader. I'm far to rebel for it nowadays.
[23:04] <Myrtti> I could rally for getting rid of the lot of you and replace you with markov bots.
[23:04] <Myrtti> oh well.
[23:05] <LjL> jrib: about the binds though, i think the substance doesn't change. it just makes it a bit harder for people to realize you're just sending them pre-typed boilerplate text, but that doesn't solve the interlying issue really. i say, for a change, the actual solution lies between two extremes - the extremes being, never using factoids, always using factoids - the solution being, applying common sense as to when a factoid will do just fine, and when a bit of
[23:05] <LjL> personalization should probably help