[18:01] <AlanBell> hi all
[18:01] <AlanBell> #startmeeting IRC team
[18:01] <meetingology> Meeting started Wed Jan 22 18:01:49 2014 UTC.  The chair is AlanBell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[18:01] <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
[18:02] <IdleOne> o/
[18:03] <AlanBell> hi all
[18:03] <AlanBell> so, this is the first meeting of the new IRCC
[18:03] <IdleOne> *applause*
[18:03] <AlanBell> I have been rather frantic and not much on IRC over the last month or so, but hopefully things will settle down a bit
[18:03] <rww_elsewhere> o/
[18:03] <rww_elsewhere> Congrats new IRCC people :)
[18:03] <hggdh> ~\o
[18:04] <AlanBell> the agenda is here, but I don't promise to stick to it :) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:04] <AlanBell> #topic Review last meetings action items
[18:04] <AlanBell> the main actions from the last meeting were to make sure that the election happened, which it did \o/
[18:05] <AlanBell> #topic chair of the IRCC
[18:05] <AlanBell> first item of business for the new year is for the IRCC to decide who is going to be the chair going forward
[18:05]  * hggdh proposes AlanBell
[18:05] <IdleOne> haha
[18:06]  * hggdh hides for a while
[18:06] <AlanBell> it isn't an unchangeable position, we can flip it about as much as we like, I have been chair for the last couple of years, I am more than happy to hand over to someone else
[18:06] <AlanBell> what it involves is sorting out meeting times, running the meeting itself and having a casting vote
[18:07] <AlanBell> personally I think IdleOne has a bit more availability than me at the moment and he just volunteered to chair the next 5 meetings \o/
[18:07] <hggdh> well, then, given that IdleOne has pretty much done the first one, I also vote for him
[18:07] <IdleOne> I did do that huh
[18:08] <rww_elsewhere> casting vote would only come into effect because of abstaining, right? since there's an odd number of people
[18:08] <AlanBell> rww_elsewhere: yeah, someone abstaining or absent
[18:08] <hggdh> casting vote should only come up on draws
[18:08] <IdleOne> alright, I'll be chair for the next 5 meetings. We can then change chair or I'll keep on sitting
[18:09] <rww_elsewhere> okay, so not more power than I trust IdleOne with >:D
[18:09] <AlanBell> it hasn't been used in the last two years, we have come to a consensus
[18:10] <hggdh> after, we can as well rotate it
[18:10] <AlanBell> yup, can be rotated, or moved on to someone else for a bit
[18:10] <AlanBell> ok, so I think we agree on that going forward
[18:10] <IdleOne> agreed
[18:10] <hggdh> aye
[18:11] <AlanBell> #agreed Idleone to be the chair of the IRCC
[18:11]  * IdleOne places crown on his own head because nobody else is worthy of doing it.
[18:11] <AlanBell> heh
[18:12] <rww_elsewhere> mock the enthroned
[18:12] <AlanBell> we have no items in the tracker or bugs, so lets move on to operator applicants . . .
[18:12] <AlanBell> #topic Operator Applicants
[18:13] <AlanBell> there is one deactivated account in a queue, I will just get rid of that one
[18:14] <AlanBell> lets start with rww_elsewhere who has applied for ops in #ubuntu I think
[18:14] <rww_elsewhere> #ubuntu, #ubuntu-offtopic, and #ubuntu-ops, iirc
[18:14] <AlanBell> yeah, just running my little script
[18:14] <rww_elsewhere> (first two are re-applications for privs I previously had, #ubuntu-ops would be new)
[18:16] <AlanBell> rww_elsewhere: were you an operator in those channels for more than 12 months?
[18:16] <rww_elsewhere> hrm
[18:16]  * rww_elsewhere pulls logs from google, sec
[18:18] <rww_elsewhere> AlanBell: I suspect so, yes.
[18:19] <rww_elsewhere> don't have definite numbers though, I'm at work
[18:19] <AlanBell> yeah, I am pretty sure it was over a year too
[18:19] <IdleOne> same here
[18:19] <AlanBell> that is the criteria for ops in -ops so I just wanted to check we were following our own rules on that
[18:20] <AlanBell> #vote approve rww for ops in #ubuntu #ubuntu-offtopic and #ubuntu-ops
[18:20] <meetingology> Please vote on: approve rww for ops in #ubuntu #ubuntu-offtopic and #ubuntu-ops
[18:20] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[18:20] <AlanBell> +1
[18:20] <meetingology> +1 received from AlanBell
[18:20] <hggdh> +1
[18:20] <meetingology> +1 received from hggdh
[18:20] <IdleOne> +1 for all 3 channels
[18:20] <meetingology> +1 for all 3 channels received from IdleOne
[18:20] <hggdh> hrumph. For the record, my +1 is for all 3 channels
[18:21] <AlanBell> I think that is all of us for the moment, pici is a bit busy and Tm_T isn't with us right now
[18:21] <AlanBell> #endvote
[18:21] <meetingology> Voting ended on: approve rww for ops in #ubuntu #ubuntu-offtopic and #ubuntu-ops
[18:21] <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[18:21] <meetingology> Motion carried
[18:21] <IdleOne> Welcome back to the team rww_elsewhere :)
[18:21] <AlanBell> yay, we will sort out the chanserv bits shortly rww_elsewhere
[18:21] <rww_elsewhere> thank you :)
[18:21] <hggdh> :-)
[18:22] <AlanBell> ok, next application is phunyguy who has applied for ops in #ubuntu-offtopic
[18:22] <AlanBell> https://launchpad.net/~robtongue
[18:23] <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phunyguy
[18:23] <rww_elsewhere> I didn't get around to editing the wiki, but I strongly support this application. phunyguy's relatively sensible, and gets on well with all of #u-ot.
[18:24] <AlanBell> I agree, phunyguy has been around for a long time, gets on with people and is helpful
[18:24] <rww_elsewhere> good at catalyzing too, which is something we need more of in there
[18:24] <AlanBell> any other comments before a vote?
[18:25] <IdleOne> I'm good to go
[18:25] <Tm_T> hi sitting in a car with poor connection
[18:25] <AlanBell> #vote phunyguy for ops in #ubuntu-offtopic
[18:25] <meetingology> Please vote on: phunyguy for ops in #ubuntu-offtopic
[18:25] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[18:25] <AlanBell> #voters Tm_T AlanBell Pici IdleOne hggdh
[18:25] <meetingology> Current voters: AlanBell IdleOne Pici Tm_T hggdh
[18:25] <AlanBell> +1 from me
[18:25] <meetingology> +1 from me received from AlanBell
[18:25] <hggdh> +1
[18:25] <meetingology> +1 received from hggdh
[18:25] <IdleOne> +1
[18:25] <meetingology> +1 received from IdleOne
[18:26] <Tm_T> +1
[18:26] <meetingology> +1 received from Tm_T
[18:26] <AlanBell> #endvote
[18:26] <meetingology> Voting ended on: phunyguy for ops in #ubuntu-offtopic
[18:26] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[18:26] <meetingology> Motion carried
[18:27] <IdleOne> Congrats phunyguy and welcome to the ops team :)
[18:27] <hggdh> phunyguy: welcome :-)
[18:27] <AlanBell> now rww is basically reactivating a previously held membership of the team, but phunyguy is new to this so needs a bit of mentoring and help with the chanserv use etc
[18:28] <AlanBell> and I think rww would make a most excellent mentor
[18:28] <IdleOne> +1
[18:28] <hggdh> indeed. rww, would you please?
[18:28] <rww_elsewhere> this is an evil plot to make me more sensible and catalytic, isn't it... :P
[18:28] <IdleOne> we're not asking.
[18:28] <rww_elsewhere> yes, I would love to :)
[18:28] <IdleOne> :)
[18:28] <AlanBell> great, thanks rww_elsewhere
[18:28] <hggdh> :-)
[18:28] <IdleOne> thanks rww
[18:28] <Tm_T> danke
[18:30] <IdleOne> I'll sort out the relevant ACL entries soon.
[18:30] <AlanBell> ok, moving on, we have no membership applications
[18:31] <AlanBell> there is a topic "Globally enable ubottu's ban removal feature." but I am not sure what the background to that is
[18:31] <AlanBell> unit193 added it
[18:32] <AlanBell> it is probably a good suggestion, but I am not sure we are ready to discuss it right now without unit193 in the channel to propose it
[18:33] <AlanBell> #topic any other business
[18:33] <AlanBell> does anyone have anything else they would like to discuss at this point?
[18:33] <AlanBell> things we should bring up at the next meeting perhaps?
[18:33] <AlanBell> anything from the open letter that was sent to the list back in November that we should be addressing now?
[18:34] <jussi> yeah.
[18:34] <hggdh> IdleOne suggested a review of the !ops for -devel. We, perhaps should review all of them for applicability
[18:34] <IdleOne> I'll let jussi go ahead
[18:35] <rww_elsewhere> I'd recommend (possibly temporarily) broadening the list, since we have a couple of trolls who target it specifically because most of can't access it. I am not volunteering to be added to that ops list.
[18:35] <jussi> I was thinking about it - perhaps we should make it a bit clearer what actions are/can be taken against an operator by the IRCC, so that people who have a complaint can see that things dont just get swept under the carpet, but are actually dealt with properly.
[18:35] <rww_elsewhere> target that channel * most of us can't op it *
[18:36] <hggdh> jussi: don't we describe the possible actions against an abusive ops?
[18:36] <rww_elsewhere> (sorry, lag. back to jussi)
[18:36] <IdleOne> jussi: what sort of actions did you have in mind?
[18:37] <AlanBell> jussi: "Appointing or recalling IRC operators or determining criteria by which they are appointed." is something we can do
[18:37] <hggdh> or are we missing more visibility?
[18:38] <jussi> IdleOne: it could range from simply saying, ok, misdemeanor, youve a warning, to a time based disqualification from operating in that channel/all channels or complete removal of ops
[18:38] <AlanBell> generally the aim is more towards conflict resolution rather than sanctions for operators
[18:38] <rww_elsewhere> and conflict resolution is mostly internal to minimize drama, so we can't really demonstrate it publicly
[18:39] <jussi> AlanBell: yes, I understand that, but by not having sanctions at all, mean that basically, not much happens if there is an issue, and there is no "paper trail"
[18:39] <hggdh> but some sort of public resolution might be needed, I think
[18:40] <IdleOne> I'm not comfortable with listing possible sanctions to ops for the world to see. I think it would give problem users more ammunition to use.
[18:41] <jussi> IdleOne: we list possible actions to users, why not to operators?
[18:41] <rww_elsewhere> on the other hand, a lack of details is ammunition for them to use that we're a cabal
[18:41] <AlanBell> yeah, I am not sure about the helpfulness of time based bans on operators
[18:41] <hggdh> but we should at least acknowlege there are sanctions for ops
[18:41] <IdleOne> jussi, rww: both good points
[18:41] <AlanBell> we have the sanction of removing operators, we can also overturn an operator decision
[18:42] <AlanBell> both of which are rare but not totally unheard of
[18:42] <rww_elsewhere> assuming those are both listed somewhere, perhaps add the sanction of temporarily suspending op privileges for ops that are burned out and acting problematically accordingly
[18:42] <rww_elsewhere> not that we'd necessarily need it, but it might be a useful middle ground between those two
[18:42] <hggdh> and, given a complaint, we should publicly announce its resolution (either as "dispute resolved between the parts", or as "declined", or as "whatever done")
[18:43] <jussi> AlanBell: so what Im seeking is discussion on what could be some more detail/other things there, (if any at all).
[18:43] <hggdh> I agree with AlanBell that an internal conflict resolution should not be made public; but some sort of public announcement should be done
[18:44] <hggdh> may I propose we follow on that via email to the ML?
[18:44] <jussi> yes, I dont think the details need to be made public either, that was not my point
[18:45] <hggdh> jussi: yes, I follow you, and agree on at least announcing the result. This is fair.
[18:46] <AlanBell> I think we need to look back at some examples, and what we might have announced under that principal
[18:46] <AlanBell> so yeah, further discussion on the mailing list and in -irc and/or -ops-team would be good on this topic I think
[18:46] <hggdh> agree. One of the points jussi brought up is we do not list how we can sanction ops, but we list how we can sanction users. Not balanced
[18:47] <AlanBell> well we do, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/Charter
[18:47] <AlanBell> it is just a short list :)
[18:48] <hggdh> well, OK, I stand corrected :-)
[18:48] <jussi> btw, as a quick additional thing, don't we think its time to remove these:
[18:48] <jussi> The Community Council will have a member sit on the IRC Council until June 2010. This will be a temporary seat. This member will offer advice, mentor and report back to the Community council. This member shall not have a casting vote.
[18:48] <jussi> The Community Council will review the state of the IRC Council in June 2010 and act upon its review if it feels necessary.
[18:48] <AlanBell> yeah, probably is redundant now, we can trim that
[18:49] <hggdh> rather old indeed
[18:49] <AlanBell> ok, another topic, when should we have IRC team meetings like this one?
[18:49] <AlanBell> this is a wednesday 18:00 meeting, we had been meeting on Sunday evenings, but that was getting increasingly inconvenient for people
[18:50] <jussi> seems the evenins eu time is good for most, excpt our asian/aussie friends
[18:50] <IdleOne> 1800 UTC makes it difficult for those on the American continent with actual real life things to do
[18:50] <AlanBell> IdleOne as chair gets to decide the time of the next meeting, but it would be good to pick a time that is good for more people
[18:50] <hggdh> as far as I am concerned,it is good for me (translates to 1200 CST)
[18:50] <IdleOne> agreed
[18:51] <IdleOne> this time also works for me. but as we saw with Pici he got called into a meeting at work.
[18:51] <IdleOne> Tm_T: this time work for you?
[18:52] <IdleOne> I guess I can figure out what works best for everyone later
[18:52] <AlanBell> yeah, maybe I will try and run some timestamp stats on -ops to see when people are talkative
[18:53] <IdleOne> RE -devel: we can do the -devel ops factoid fix behind the scenes, ask for volunteers from the ops pool.
[18:53] <AlanBell> ok, lets wrap this meeting up now, unless anyone has any extra items?
[18:53] <hggdh> nope
[18:53] <IdleOne> I'm good.
[18:53] <AlanBell> #endmeeting
[18:53] <meetingology> Meeting ended Wed Jan 22 18:53:48 2014 UTC.
[18:53] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-01-22-18.01.moin.txt
[18:53] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-01-22-18.01.html
[18:54] <AlanBell> thanks all
[18:54] <IdleOne> thank you everybody for showing up :)
[18:54] <AlanBell> and IdleOne now has the chair
[18:54] <AlanBell> (it is still warm)
[18:54] <hggdh> jussi: care to spearhead on what you asked (on the ML)?