[06:19] <phunyguy> hello
[06:19] <phunyguy> rww, IdleOne, elky, Unit193, welcome to #ubuntu-irc, the land of ubuntu IRC discussion.
[06:21] <rww> So. There's been a lot of discussion about what's broken with the IRC Core Team (i.e., the folks that op #ubuntu, #ubuntu-offtopic, #ubuntu-ops, etc.) recently.
[06:22] <rww> And we have a few venues like ubuntu-irc mailing list, and #ubuntu-ops-team, and #ubuntu-ops to discuss this, but they all -- frankly -- suck.
[06:22] <rww> So Unit193 proposed, and phunyguy and I agree, that talking about it in here may make the discussion improve without making this channel suck too.
[06:23] <rww> before we segued onto that topic, my last statement was along the lines of:
[06:24] <rww> I think a lot of people have lost faith in the IRC Council as an institution because various iterations of it have chosen inaction in important situations. I'm tempted to say that they should stick with ban appeals and let us govern ourselves for the rest of it, but consensus has so far being a crap way of managing the team because it's too large.
[06:24] <rww> So we need some respected process for us to make decisions that will lead people who disagree with the end result to be happy that they were heard and respect the conclusion. The IRC Council establishment is not that. Which is not a slight against the people currently on the IRCC, but against the institution of it. Having some sort of batcrap crazy chaos is also not that. So I don't know what *is* that.
[06:25] <IdleOne> I like this idea. Too tired to want to talk about anything specific right now, but I think this more open forum will allow people to contribute and maybe help the team of ops deal with some of the issues it has had for a long time now.
[06:26] <phunyguy> ^
[06:26] <phunyguy> same about the tired.
[06:26] <rww> I'm pretty out of it too, but I wanted to get the above out there and see if anyone had any thoughts.
[06:26] <IdleOne> Good idea
[06:26] <phunyguy> the other elephant in the room, is the human aspect of IRC has gone a way a bit.
[06:27] <phunyguy> we have to make sure that is out there as a discussion topic as well.
[06:27] <rww> (and an aside: some of the issues with the IRC team are also issues with Ubuntu in general, but we can't fix Ubuntu in general right now, and we can (hopefully) fix this team)
[06:29] <phunyguy> I am just as guilty of this, but we have a nasty habit of enforcing rules "too much", and it drives people away.  I made this point the other day, but I will make it public here.   When I first started using #ubuntu for support, I will not mention any names, I made an offtopic remark or two, because I didn't know about the offtopic channel, but I got the nasty "Stop with the offtopic outbursts, or you will be removed from the channel".
[06:30] <phunyguy> THAT can't happen.
[06:30] <rww> Agreed. I think this is where we started wandering off into talking about factiods the other week too.
[06:30] <phunyguy> I am now an op here, so I must be a decent human being, yet I was treated like garbage.
[06:30] <rww> because a lot of that overly-snappy behavior is reinforced by us having cookie-cutter responses to "offtopic" etc. comments.
[06:32] <phunyguy> yes, you are correct.
[06:32] <phunyguy> or me recently with the "We don't support Google Chrome here" in #ubuntu.
[06:32] <phunyguy> I will take the hit on that one.
[06:33] <phunyguy> the other aspect I don't agree with is "You aren't experienced enough in this, so i recommend you stop doing it"
[06:34] <rww> phunyguy: as in saying that to a user who's trying to do something advanced/unsupported?
[06:35] <phunyguy> no, just something advanced.
[06:35] <rww> okay
[06:35] <phunyguy> unsupported maybe, but resetting a mysql root password because a coworker who did a terrible job got fired
[06:36] <phunyguy> and being told that you aren't experienced enough and shouldn't be doing it for a living is just flat out wrong.
[06:36] <rww> good example, and I agree with you on that sort of thing
[06:36] <phunyguy> especially if you are picking up slack.
[06:36] <rww> (I think our attitude towards unsupported behavior needs to get less harsher, but we can discuss that later)
[06:40] <elky> are people still flipping out about eulas?
[06:40] <rww> elky: hrm?
[06:41] <elky> i tried to convince some people a few years ago that flipping out when someone wants to install osx in a VM is hilariously silly since it's a contractual matter not a legal issue
[06:42] <elky> this is of course applicable to other scenarios
[06:44] <jose> well, on a personal note, I think support in #ubuntu is not well managed. the only couple times I went there for support, people ended up saying 'you don't collaborate, go find help somewhere else'
[06:44] <rww> Since SCaLE, I've been pondering how to turn #ubuntu into a functional support avenue like AskUbuntu seems to be.
[06:45] <rww> And perhaps it's just pessimism from bashing my head against #ubuntu so much, but I think IRC is structurally a bad system for this.
[06:45] <rww> Way too many people in one place is going to be extremely difficult to manage. We make it worse, but even if we were perfect it would still be a mess.
[06:45] <elky> the ability to delete stupid things that were said from everyone's scrollback makes management infinitely difficult.
[06:46] <rww> inability*, and yes, that's one huge advantage of stack
[06:46] <elky> anyway, my back is cramping, i need to go move around before i start crying
[06:46] <rww> you edit the questions/answers until they're good reference, and then point people at them
[06:47] <rww> but while some of the issue with #ubuntu is structural, we are very, very, very far off doing the best we can to manage it
[06:47] <jose> I think that the fact that there's more people looking for support nowadays than it was a couple years ago has made it a non-viable method of support
[06:47] <rww> (and this focuses on #ubuntu, when the IRC Team itself has issues independent of any channel)
[06:48] <rww> or, in other words, we need a brainstorm board for "let's fix the IRC team", and a brainstorm board for "let's fix #ubuntu" with an entry "fix the IRC team" on the latter
[06:48] <phunyguy> ^
[06:48] <jose> and how can that be done?
[06:49] <phunyguy> that remains to be seen.
[06:49] <phunyguy> well actually, no it doesn't.. I think I spelled it out pretty good above.
[06:50] <phunyguy> kinda tired of dancing around it :(
[06:53] <jose> I think a meeting can be summoned, and during/after that we can note down ideas on an etherpad
[06:56] <rww> pad.ubuntu.com requires indirect membership in https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-etherpad still, right?
[06:56] <phunyguy> :(
[06:57] <rww> if so, one of the IRC LP teams needs to get added to that
[06:57] <jose> well, membership to ~ubuntu-etherpad is practically open
[06:57] <jose> just request it and popey will approve you within minutes, if he's awake
[06:58] <rww> *nod*
[06:58] <rww> still, less hoops and all that
[06:58] <rww> anyway
[06:58] <rww> etherpad: very yes
[06:58] <phunyguy> ^ yes
[06:58] <rww> meeting: i'd prefer to mention here during a regular IRCC meeting and on the mailing list, and have ongoing discussion
[06:59] <phunyguy> ^ yes also
[07:00] <phunyguy> ok ladies and germs... time for me to go to bed.
[07:00] <phunyguy> thanks for listening.  :)
[07:01] <rww> thanks for not disappearing because of me being argumentative ;)
[07:01] <rww> i put you on the spot earlier tonight, this is what I wanted to happen :)
[07:03] <phunyguy> :)
[07:03] <phunyguy> bai
[09:38] <MooDoo> hello all
[12:28] <Daekdroom> EITAZORRAZZFF is in #ubuntu-br spamming user's nicknames for attention.
[12:28] <Daekdroom> (for the sake of being annoying)
[12:29] <Daekdroom> And now there are two of them.
[14:40] <Daekdroom> #ubuntu-br is getting DDoS'd again.
[15:40] <MooDoo> Daekdroom: was it sorted?
[15:40] <Daekdroom> MooDoo, yes. I hadn't noticed at the time but niko is still at the channel and took care of it.
[15:40] <MooDoo> groovy :)
[17:01] <phunyguy> IdleOne: cprofitt, AlanBell, et all, can we discuss in here?
[17:02] <IdleOne> yup
[17:02] <phunyguy> Just seems more appropriate
[17:02] <IdleOne> old habit of going in there is hard to break
[17:03] <phunyguy> maybe that needs to be added to an ubuntu-irc@ post
[17:03] <phunyguy> maybe it will be my first ever mailing list post on any list!
[17:04] <phunyguy> cprofitt: so you get where I was going with that.
[17:08] <cprofitt> yes, we can disuss here
[17:09] <cprofitt> I think one thing to keep in mind -- to assume - is that everyone wants what is best for the team... there may be differences in opinion on what to do to get there, but one should not assume ill intent
[17:10] <phunyguy> yes. I can agree with that.
[17:11] <cprofitt> With that said, what are the recommendations to get the team back to a healthy state... then work on improving how the team operates?
[17:13] <cprofitt> IdleOne do you have some specific issues?
[17:15] <phunyguy> I stated my issues twice now.  The whole treating people with respect no matter how new they are, or whatever crummy position at work they were dumped in.
[17:15] <phunyguy> if they need help, they need help.
[17:16] <cprofitt> phunyguy - respect is a two way street though... I assume you want IRC ops to show some restraint and take things on a case by case basis?
[17:16] <IdleOne> cprofitt: That is the thing. I don't think there are any specific issues. I think that many if not all the issues stem from personal interpretation of the CoC and channel guidelines. Some people are more strict in enforcing those documents then others.
[17:17] <IdleOne> That creates a sense of resentment on both sides of the isle?
[17:17] <phunyguy> cprofitt: that is a start.   The mentality of "This is my playground, so whatever I say, goes" is not a good way to do business.
[17:17] <IdleOne> This is what I am getting from what I have heard from people so far
[17:17] <cprofitt> So, IdleOne you are saying that by not having set rules we have issues with things being taken 'personally' vs. 'by the rule'.
[17:18] <cprofitt> so to be clear do we have issues with -ops playing favorites? or being too harsh?
[17:18] <phunyguy> cprofitt: yes.
[17:18] <cprofitt> Is it differences between -op 1 and -op 2 or is it the same -op acting differently towards different people?
[17:18] <IdleOne> I think so. There has long been complaints from many users that the !guidelines are not specific enough and allow ops to use them for personal vendettas. I don't believe that has been the case, but I do understand how a vague set of rules can be hard to enforce.
[17:19]  * cprofitt nods
[17:20] <cprofitt> Is there an issue with 'protect your own' in which operators take the side of operators when there has been a dispute?
[17:20] <phunyguy> yes, hard to enforce, but some do enforce, and it is to the point of, "I can say what I want, because I am the op, and you are terrible at what you do, so maybe you should try something else."
[17:20] <IdleOne> some ops such as LjL have long said that the ops team (or many of us) are to literal in the interpretation. letter of the law vs spirit of the law
[17:21] <phunyguy> being an op, doesn't mean you can be a bully.
[17:21] <cprofitt> phunyguy: I agree - not good to have bullies
[17:22] <LjL> There is a correction I need to make there: I am not an op.
[17:22] <phunyguy> hi LjL  :)
[17:22] <IdleOne> LjL: right, former ops*
[17:22] <cprofitt> I think the problem is one that is hard to fix... but steps can be taken to make things better...
[17:22] <IdleOne> but LjL I would like, if you want, to be a part of this discussion also. I think you still have a lot to offer to it.
[17:22] <cprofitt> though past history may make the issue thorny
[17:23] <cprofitt> I would like LjL to have a voice as well, but I would like to ensure that we all take time to prevent emotions for running high
[17:24] <IdleOne> absolutely agree and this is why I think it was a great idea to move the discussion to this channel, where it is logged and open to all to contribute.
[17:24]  * cprofitt nods
[17:25] <cprofitt> so currently how does -op behavior get reviewed?
[17:26] <LjL> The only thing I'm willing to offer this so-called team at the present moment and in the present situation is my middle finger.
[17:26] <phunyguy> good question.
[17:26] <phunyguy> LjL :(
[17:26] <MooDoo> wow
[17:27] <phunyguy> LjL: take offtopic discussions to #ubuntu-offt...   oh wait.
[17:27] <IdleOne> I think we should definitely keep from making any jokes or sarcastic comments.
[17:28] <IdleOne> This is a serious issue for the ops team and the irc community and we need to stay on the right track.
[17:28] <phunyguy> yes, apologies.
[17:28] <phunyguy> I need coffee.  brb
[17:29] <MooDoo> as an outsider, who is interested this is very interesting [also sorry for buttin in] ;)
[17:30] <cprofitt> MooDoo: no worries... we are having this discussion here to get more opions... just like yours
[17:30] <MooDoo> thanks
[17:32] <IdleOne> As someone who is looking in from the outside you probably will be able to see things we don't or chose not to.
[17:32] <IdleOne> So feel free to jump in and help if you think you can
[17:32] <cprofitt> lets get back to the question, how is operatore status reviewed?
[17:33] <IdleOne> I don't really think it is.
[17:34] <Fuchs> you can never write rules that are specific enough, people will always find open leaks. The more you try, the more complicated they will get, and people will stop reading them. So a short, simple set or rules is better. If an operator actually did abuse the power or was a bully, then there are enough groups that can review this, starting at the council which people are free to contact in that case
[17:34] <phunyguy> Fuchs++
[17:34] <Fuchs> I mean, there is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess
[17:34] <phunyguy> But I think the issue is the fact that the IRCC hasn't been.
[17:35] <Fuchs> hasn't been what?
[17:35] <MooDoo> with the ircc is there a poc like the loco teams or is everyone equal?
[17:35] <phunyguy> Fuchs: reviewing, or not taking any action.
[17:35] <phunyguy> that is the impression I got anyway
[17:35] <Fuchs> ah, yeah, that would defeat the purpose slightly. But then there still is https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess point 5, the community council
[17:36] <IdleOne> MooDoo: the point of contact for the IRCC would be the chair which was me up until last night.
[17:36] <cprofitt> Fuchs: that raises a question for me... does behavior only get reviewed in an appeal?
[17:36] <IdleOne> cprofitt: typically, yes.
[17:36] <Fuchs> cprofitt: I don't know about core channels, I am only a op in a local channel. But I do assume so, yes.
[17:36]  * cprofitt nods
[17:36] <cprofitt> is there any health check done for irc ops on a by channel basis
[17:37] <Fuchs> (and personally I don't see a point in periodic reviews. If you hear nothing, things are fine. If there are more and more IRCC / CC appeals concerning a specific op, then maybe a review is due)
[17:37] <phunyguy> ^ yes
[17:37] <cprofitt> not like a review or inqusition, but like "hey, how are you guys feeling?" everyone still feeling good?
[17:37] <IdleOne> I was thinking about this a little earlier. I think a big problem is that we are trying to govern this giant country and not letting each city do it's own thing.
[17:37] <cprofitt> Fuchs: some channels can really push operators... no news is not always good news if we have people in the process of burning out
[17:38] <Fuchs> cprofitt: then why don't these people report that?
[17:38] <LjL> maybe they do in private and (semi-)informally and get ignored all the time
[17:38] <cprofitt> Fuchs: it is hard to see that you are burning out... when you are burning out.
[17:38] <Fuchs> anyway. We  (the german speaking ones) have regular meetings where such concerns can/could be addressed.  Based on experience: rarely up to never used
[17:38] <LjL> surprise
[17:39] <Fuchs> cprofitt: well, then I wonder if they'd notice if they are asked "are you feeling okay?". I doubt it. If people _around_ an op notice that he/she is burning out, then it's their duty to report. Not due to this being IRC or ubuntu, but rather common sense.
[17:39] <cprofitt> Fuchs: the people themselves may not...
[17:39] <cprofitt> but perhaps their fellow ops would
[17:39] <Fuchs> I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, but I don't really think there is an administrative works-everytime solution for this problem.
[17:40] <Fuchs> well, yes, then they should report it, really :)
[17:40] <cprofitt> and if there was a set time to discuss it would not feel so much like ratting out a friend
[17:40] <MooDoo> Fuchs: reporting it only works if it doesn't fall on deaf ears right?
[17:40] <cprofitt> yes, we have to not have deaf ears as well
[17:41] <Fuchs> MooDoo: well, yes, obviously. But there you also have quite a big set of ears  (starting with your fellow ops, then the IRCC, then the CC), so if all of them are deaf, then there is a huge problem
[17:41] <cprofitt> Has it been the case that operators report burn out and do not get listened too?
[17:41] <IdleOne> Fuchs cprofitt: people have gone to the ircc and suggested that an op should maybe take a break, but there hasn't been (that I have seen) any real way of mandating an op take time off.
[17:41] <phunyguy> short of removing +o from the channels
[17:42] <LjL> of course it's not like a "forced break" is anything that can be considered a "break" but in bureaucratic terms
[17:42] <IdleOne> which is not the best way
[17:42] <cprofitt> IdleOne: do you think that is because 'time off' is seen as a punishment rather than a well earned vacation?
[17:42] <phunyguy> IdleOne: it's the only way.
[17:42] <IdleOne> cprofitt: I think so, yes.
[17:43] <Fuchs> I think taking flags of should be really the last possible measure, as indeed it can be taken wrongly by the affected person. Talking to them is way more important, and trying to solve it without having to alter actual privileges. However, if it doesn't work, then I'd say that is still better than a burnout, really
[17:43] <cprofitt> is there resistence to rotating channels? In other words... ops rotate through channels so everyone gets a turn in the stressful and non-stressful channels?
[17:44] <Fuchs> maybe the "punishment" sense can be lowered a bit when people keep other things  (e.g. launchpad memberships or whatnot), so they still feel as part of the team, just not on duty
[17:44] <cprofitt> I would not want to have all rookies in stressful channels mind you...
[17:44] <LjL> Fuchs: do you think not allowing for leeway after removing flags is going to be helpful against getting both?
[17:44] <IdleOne> I think channel culture will make rotating ops difficult
[17:44] <phunyguy> IdleOne: agree.
[17:45] <Fuchs> LjL: I'd say depends on the case, I wouldn't give a general statement here. It certainly has to be well thought of and done carefully. I am not really aware of the current case, but you seem to be very unhappy
[17:45] <Fuchs> LjL: if you want to talk to someone "external" about it, feel free to poke me
[17:45] <cprofitt> I agree IdleOne, but if we keep people familiar with the channel culture in with those that are not potentially we can help have more people exposed
[17:45] <Fuchs> LjL: but as for the general solution and not "your" case: see above, depends, really.
[17:45] <LjL> not external enough i'm afraid
[17:46] <cprofitt> I would think the start of rotation might be difficult, but eventually it would level out
[17:46] <Fuchs> LjL: well, let me know if I can do something for you or organize someone, then :)
[17:46] <Fuchs> cprofitt: I am slightly against rotation. Knowing a couple of different ubuntu channels: the culture really is that different that an op not used to it might very well start upsetting people,
[17:46] <phunyguy> cprofitt: I am not OK with that.
[17:46] <MooDoo> cprofitt: wouldn't that just annoy people rotating?
[17:47] <MooDoo> From starting my ops process, can't you just have some process in place for putting ops on review?
[17:47] <Fuchs> e.g. if a specific topic or behaviour was so far okay in channel #ubuntu-xy, now the new op comes in and kicks people due to it, then things are quite sure to go downwards from there on
[17:47] <phunyguy> we all have the channels we are most comfortable in.
[17:47] <MooDoo> Fuchs: see isn't that where people need to be approacing ircc and reporting it?
[17:47] <Fuchs> I'd rather say have more ops in the "difficult" channels  (and yes, I know how hard it is, former staff, #defocus)
[17:48] <cprofitt> rotating could annoy people... I was just brain storming a way to get people time away from stress with out removing op status
[17:48] <cprofitt> or having it be a punishment
[17:48] <Fuchs> MooDoo: well, yes, but actually I'd rather if stuff like that would not happen in the first place :)   But yes, that would be where to go from there  (if talking to ops doesn't already work)
[17:48] <LjL> MooDoo: i think it's where people, especially long-time channel regulars, should probably tell the rookie concerned "get the fuck out of our channel now"
[17:49] <Fuchs> in a slightly friendlier tone, and maybe giving him/her the chance to adapt first
[17:49] <phunyguy> unfortunately, the way I see it, stress is part of the job you applied for.  Maybe removing op status from that channel is not the best idea.  But there should be some sort of system in place for "Ok you have been reported 4 times now for being a jerk in #ubuntu, let's talk and see where your head is at"
[17:50] <phunyguy> maybe try to guide the operator into a different behavior
[17:50] <phunyguy> thids doesn't need to be too incredibly difficult.
[17:50] <MooDoo> hang on shouldn't the op guide themselves,?
[17:50] <phunyguy> not if they are pissing people off.
[17:50] <Fuchs> MooDoo: technically yes, but assuming you do have a rotation (which I think is not a good idea), then this might be hard
[17:50] <IdleOne> MooDoo: yes, but ops are human and sometimes humans don't see how they are acting until it is too late
[17:50] <Fuchs> what should happen though, regardless of whether you do have a rotation or not, is that other  (more senior) ops do guide you
[17:51] <Fuchs> so if you really do introduce an op rotation (which I still see as a bad idea), then maybe have the new op take a couple of days in there first without actual opping, so he/she sees how things are done
[17:51] <LjL> Fuchs: oh, is that why rww was appointed as my mentor in 2012 or whenever it was? i had never seen that under that light
[17:52] <IdleOne> We need to try and keep this as non personal as possible. This discussion is not about one person or one channel.
[17:52] <Fuchs> LjL: again, I am afraid that I do not know your specific case, sorry. I do think that mentoring is a good thing, though. Whether rww is a good choice or not is up to debate, I can't really decide whether that was sarcasm from you there or not  (sorry, downside of text only communication)
[17:53] <LjL> Fuchs: it was sarcasm, since in 2012, i had merely taken what you'd call a "break" or "hiatus" from opping, since i had actually been an op starting in 2006
[17:53] <LjL> Fuchs: and in fact, rww only started being an op after i was
[17:53] <Fuchs> (and I think it would be better to keep this debate here generic, so that future cases can be solved as well)
[17:54] <Fuchs> ah, yeah, as said, wasn't aware of the specifics. But then maybe this should have been solved back then, I am afraid that no matter what is done or decided or discussed here today changes what happened in 2012 :(
[17:54] <phunyguy> ^
[17:54] <Fuchs> however, I do think that, if everybody tries to keep emotions out of this and be pragmatic, this here could lead to past errors not happening again, and improve the situation for the future
[17:54] <LjL> Fuchs: yet, rww has only started being an op *again* recently, end of 2013 i believe?
[17:55] <LjL> was he assigned a mentor?
[17:55] <Fuchs> now while that doesn't solve your case, I am afraid that whatever might have happened already did happen, so it is too late anyway. So lets make the best out of it at least, right? :)
[17:55] <LjL> no
[17:55] <Fuchs> well, I don't know, but if there is rule that people should have a mentor and he fell under that and didn't get one: that would be something that should be addressed. Then there we'd have a point that could be improved
[17:56] <MooDoo> Do you feel ops that have been doing it awhile and who come back require mentors?
[17:57] <Fuchs> to be somewhat blunt (hoping you accept that from me): whatever happened that made you made: unfortunately it did happen and can't be changed. But we could try to improve things for the future, so this doesn't happen to others. That would be nice, wouldn't it?   (Well, you wouldn't directly benefit from it. But neither would you from anything else, hence the "unfortunately already too late")
[17:57] <phunyguy> Yep, man this is a great discussion so far.
[17:57] <phunyguy> MooDoo: I do not.
[17:58] <LjL> Fuchs: nice? no, i wouldn't find it nice
[17:58] <Fuchs> LjL: right. What would you find nice?
[17:58] <IdleOne> LjL: there was strong opposition back then to giving you back +o and that is why the IRCC at the time decided to assign a mentor. I agree with Fuchs that there is nothing that can be done now to change how things happened then. How do we make things better now is the question.
[17:58] <LjL> IdleOne: how do you happen to know that, given that last time we talked about that in #ubuntu-irc-council, the general response seemed to be that you didn't know / remember?
[17:59] <MooDoo> LjL: so from what I've been seeing, you've been aggreived somehow....I don't know the ins and outs of it, but let me ask.  What are you actually wanting right now [sorry if that sounded aggressive?]
[17:59] <LjL> MooDoo: what i'm wanting is only my concern
[17:59] <IdleOne> LjL: because I spoke to members of the IRCC at the time after the discussion we had in the council channel and learned this
[17:59] <LjL> Fuchs: getting laid, other things
[17:59] <phunyguy> this is getting off track
[17:59] <MooDoo> sorry
[18:00] <Fuchs> LjL: right. Let me rephrase: what would you like here / from the CC / from the ops team to be done?
[18:00] <IdleOne> LjL: This is still an ubuntu channel, please keep it clean and within the channel guidelines please.
[18:00] <LjL> IdleOne: eat shit
[18:00]  * MooDoo is just totally lost lol....
[18:00] <Fuchs> LjL: because I really suggest that either we all try to keep this pragmatic and actual helpful or, if not possible, let the situation cool down first until it is possible.
[18:00]  * chu sighs
[18:00] <phunyguy> hell chu
[18:01] <phunyguy> hello*
[18:01] <phunyguy> oops
[18:01] <chu> Hey phunyguy.
[18:01] <MooDoo> sorry guys I just don't get it, he doesn't want anything, he doesn't want anything resolved, but he won't tell us why?  I'm missing something pyes i'm a noob] ;)
[18:01] <phunyguy> MooDoo: it's a long story.
[18:02] <phunyguy> MooDoo: reading the ubuntu-irc mailing list has lots of good info.
[18:02] <MooDoo> phunyguy: yeah sorry for interferring....just wondering why he keeps coming in moaning...
[18:02] <phunyguy> MooDoo: no worries
[18:02]  * MooDoo shuts up lol
[18:04] <cprofitt> MooDoo: your input is valued... and you guys are correct that to get to a better place we can not rehash what happened in 2012 on a personal level... generic with suggestions to get better.... sure
[18:05] <MooDoo> :)  I agree to the point that there needs to be some way of policing the ops though, but do people feel scared approaching the IRCC in the first place?
[18:06] <phunyguy> MooDoo: I doubt it
[18:06] <MooDoo> phunyguy: doubt or know?
[18:07] <phunyguy> I doubt folks are afraid to approach the IRCC, but I cannot speak for everyone
[18:07] <phunyguy> it's not like it is public info unless they make it public.
[18:08] <cprofitt> I thik we have two issues
[18:09] <MooDoo> it sounds to me that people who go into #ubuntu for example, just as a generic user who doesn't know ubuntu well wouldn't kow what to do if an ops became abusive or was bullying them
[18:09] <cprofitt> 1)  Operators who made a bad decision on a particular case -- the case needs to be reviewed
[18:09] <Daekdroom> MooDoo, are you talking about "people" in general or other ops?
[18:09] <cprofitt> 2) Bad operators - either due to burn out or other
[18:09] <MooDoo> Daekdroom: in this case generaly people sorry think i've gone off track
[18:09] <Daekdroom> I'm not the generic #ubuntu visitor and I have no idea how to contact IRCC (although I don't think I'd have trouble finding out how)
[18:10] <phunyguy> well if you get banned from #ubuntu, you can go to -ops to discuss, and they will give you the appeals link
[18:10] <phunyguy> generally.
[18:11] <Daekdroom> Yes. Sometimes they even include 'https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess?action=show&redirect=IrcTeam%2FAppealProcess" in the ban.
[18:11] <MooDoo> as a percentage [ish random guess] how many of these appeals followed through, is there a ticketing system or such like?
[18:12] <chu> I have a sneaky suspicion most appeals are rubbish.
[18:12] <cprofitt> chu: that would be an issue as well... we need to have people think appeals are valid
[18:12] <bazhang> s/sneaky/sneaking/
[18:13] <MooDoo> well if it's all done without no history / logs, then that's not very good :S
[18:13] <phunyguy> maybe a ticket system isn't a half bad idea
[18:13] <cprofitt> though we also have to have a system that disallows people who are tossed for good reason gumming up the works repeatedly with appeals
[18:13] <chu> Note that I am in no way involved with the IRCC though, just the most common case (well, of the cases I see) of someone requesting an appeal are troll users.
[18:13] <MooDoo> chu: I'm not either, but I want to be one day lol
[18:14] <MooDoo> cprofitt: you'd have to have it that the owner of the ticket isn't the op being complained about...but they can have input on it
[18:14] <cprofitt> MooDoo: the issue with compaints is that they usually have these features:
[18:15] <cprofitt> 1)  A person booted from a channel usually gets more angry and acts poorly for a period of time befor calming down
[18:15] <cprofitt> 2) a person booted usually makes allegations they were being picked on in another channel or that it is a long standing fued
[18:16] <cprofitt> 3)  People have bad days
[18:16] <phunyguy> eehhh.... starting to retract my statement about it being a decent idea
[18:16] <phunyguy> seems like am admin nightmare
[18:16] <chu> Of all the requests I have seen, they are usually of the form: "I don't like ikonia; he banned me. Remove my ban now or I will call Mark Shuttleworth and complain."
[18:17] <cprofitt> MooDoo: the way the system is currently setip -- I think is that the the IRCC members are not -ops while serving on the IRCC
[18:17] <MooDoo> phunyguy: what other historical medium do you have?  or is it all done on the fly?
[18:17] <cprofitt> chu: exactly
[18:17] <phunyguy> I don't understand the question
[18:17] <cprofitt> most complaints about bans are overly aggressive
[18:17] <MooDoo> cprofitt: ah!
[18:18] <MooDoo> phunyguy: do you log op complaints any where?
[18:18] <MooDoo> phunyguy: I might totally not be making sense here, just trying to get a feel for how it all works,
[18:18] <cprofitt> I think there is a broader issue of behavior that does not result in boots
[18:18] <phunyguy> MooDoo: not that I am aeware of
[18:18] <phunyguy> aware*
[18:18] <cprofitt> I am not aware of one either
[18:18] <MooDoo> hmmm interesting
[18:19] <cprofitt> MY assumption though would be an email sent to the IRCC
[18:19] <cprofitt> that would be in a mailing list
[18:19] <phunyguy> No I think that would be a bad idea
[18:19] <phunyguy> thta probably becomes public info
[18:19] <phunyguy> that*
[18:19] <phunyguy> There is an irc-council channel, no?
[18:19] <cprofitt> phunyguy: not all email lists are public
[18:19] <phunyguy> this is also true.
[18:19] <cprofitt> there is a channel
[18:20] <MooDoo> couldn't you have a channel where the aggrieved parties could come for a meeting with an senior op?
[18:20] <cprofitt> private email list only seen by irc-council and perhaps the cc would likely keep things more private
[18:20] <cprofitt> MooDoo: then you have an issue with what if it was a senior op who did the kick-ban
[18:21] <cprofitt> it is an administrative nightmare, but I would think you have to go outside of the -op group to complain
[18:21] <cprofitt> though to be honest I think if most people back away from a kick-ban... sleep on it and then come back and talk to the -op who booted them that things would likely go fairly well
[18:22] <cprofitt> especially if they offered an apology for the poor behavior
[18:22] <MooDoo> you guys rock, it's all so complicated lol
[18:23]  * MooDoo makes a mental note, you really want to get involved with this ;) lol
[18:23] <cprofitt> being an -op is not an easy thing
[18:24] <cprofitt> at least not in the high traffic low experience channels
[18:24] <MooDoo> cprofitt: now he tells me seeing as I've applied to be one lol
[18:24] <cprofitt> MooDoo: I am glad you did... I think the more people that -op the more likely this problem becomes a bit easier to deal with
[18:25] <phunyguy> I agree.
[18:25] <cprofitt> more -ops mean people can take a break from a rough channel... feel less pressure that they have to be there
[18:25] <cprofitt> and more eyeballs on bad -ops
[18:25] <cprofitt> bad -ops decisions
[18:25] <cprofitt> etc
[18:25] <phunyguy> why do you keep adding a dash?
[18:25] <phunyguy> -ops
[18:25] <cprofitt> habbit I guess
[18:25] <phunyguy> and an extra b
[18:25] <phunyguy> :)
[18:26] <MooDoo> and the groups you apply to are devel-ops etc ubuntu-ops ?
[18:26] <cprofitt> yeah... had hobbit on my mind
[18:26] <chu> One problem with certain users is that the second you invoke your op "powers" you essentially escalate the problem and the user is now set in some irrational tirade against *you*, so that for certain users it's really about catalyzing *without* showing that you're an op. Now this is time and effort which some ops just don't have to spend, so, how do you deal with it?
[18:26] <phunyguy> chu, well said
[18:27] <phunyguy> if there is no time to spend being an op... then whey are they doing it?
[18:27] <MooDoo> there is a saying behaviour breeds behaviour, sholdn't you only use ops when it's the last resourt?
[18:28] <Daekdroom> MooDoo, it is the reason FreeNode asks channel ops to only have +o when necessary.
[18:29] <MooDoo> :)
[18:29] <cprofitt> chu: I think it also depends on the behavior
[18:29] <phunyguy> hence chanserv, and flags
[18:29] <Daekdroom> When someone has +o, the dynamic changes.
[18:30] <cprofitt> swearing in an official ubuntu channel is different than making a racial comment attacking a person
[18:30] <MooDoo> both require just a warning surely
[18:30] <cprofitt> some behavior needs a private discussion other behavior needs a boot to the head
[18:31] <cprofitt> MooDoo: hence some of the difference in ops... if I saw someone attack a person with racial attacks I would boot them
[18:31] <cprofitt> but I realize that might just be me.
[18:31] <cprofitt> I have a low tolerance for that
[18:32] <phunyguy> perfectly acceptable, but we are allowed to act how we feel is best for the channel
[18:32] <cprofitt> use of a racially charged word without the personal attack would be a warning from me
[18:32] <cprofitt> +1 phunyguy
[18:32] <phunyguy> there will always be someone that disagrees.
[18:33] <phunyguy> which is why, and I hate to say this, the IRCC probably doesn't do much when approached.  How would you fix it?
[18:33] <cprofitt> phunyguy -- well if there was a pattern of inconsistent operator behavior
[18:33] <phunyguy> right
[18:34] <phunyguy> but insonsistent according to whom?
[18:34] <cprofitt> say op 1 kicks person A for swearing, but then allows person B a long time Ubuntu personality to swear up a storm... that would be a problem
[18:34] <MooDoo> so why don't ircc do much, you need to change this
[18:34] <chu> I don't like drawing attention to some things, because it then just attracts certain observers - they now know what's a "key" to firing off the ops. And in the end, it's that response they're looking for, some form of "validation" perhaps. I'll often let something slide - without a warning - and if it continues, then it becomes something I deal with.
[18:37] <cprofitt> I hope everyone thinks this has been a valuable discussion
[18:38] <phunyguy> of course it has
[18:38] <cprofitt> I would encourage further discussion
[18:38] <cprofitt> but we need to keep it calm and not dredge up old wounds
[18:38] <MooDoo> it's been enlightening :)
[18:38] <cprofitt> that only makes trying to move forward difficult
[18:39] <MooDoo> so perhaps you can make points from the logs and raise it at the next ircc meeting?  does this happen?
[18:39] <MooDoo> wow i'm so interferring ;)
[18:39] <cprofitt> MooDoo: anyone can likely add an item to the agenda
[18:39] <cprofitt> everyone might want to read this:
[18:39] <cprofitt> http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_86.htm
[18:40] <cprofitt> or any other information on the stages of team development
[18:40] <cprofitt> to help identify what is taking place with the team
[18:41] <cprofitt> I am also willing to have anyone contact me and discuss things
[18:44] <MooDoo> thanks all, it's been fun, speak soon, taking son to bed :D
[18:45] <phunyguy> ok sir.
[18:48] <cprofitt> thanks MooDoo
[18:50] <cprofitt> phunyguy: is there any particular behavior from last night or today that you find troubling?
[18:50] <phunyguy> cprofitt: we hashed that out last night
[18:50] <phunyguy> all is well.
[18:50]  * cprofitt nods
[18:51] <cprofitt> what about today - this discussion?
[18:52] <phunyguy> I don't understand the question, and why are you singling me out?
[18:53] <cprofitt> did not mean to single you out, but MooDoo went to put his son to bed
[18:53] <cprofitt> and I knew you were still here
[18:53] <cprofitt> this is a heated topic... so I wanted to make sure how the discussion went was acceptable... to see if I could have guided it any better
[18:53] <phunyguy> I think this was a great discussion today.
[18:53] <Pricey> 17:47:25 < Fuchs> e.g. if a specific topic or behaviour was so far okay in channel #ubuntu-xy, now the new op comes in and kicks people due to it, then things are quite sure to go downwards from there on
[18:54] <Pricey> Oh deary deary deary dear that makes me crnige.
[18:54] <Pricey> Cringe even.
[18:54] <Fuchs> hm?
[18:54] <chu> Although I came into this conversation late, I think something which came up was about accountability of operators. But I have no idea what a nice solution to this problem would be.
[18:54] <phunyguy> chu: that is indeed a big issue that has no clear resolution
[18:55] <Pricey> Fuchs: You seem to be implying that there would be a problem with the op choosing to take action because of there being a bad topic. I don't really want to get in on that discussion.
[18:55] <phunyguy> chu: but I don't feel it is impossible to resolve.
[18:55] <Fuchs> Pricey: read the whole backlog.
[18:55] <Pricey> Fuchs: What narks me off is that you suggest straight away that the new op would kick people due to it... and that's what narks me off.
[18:55] <Pricey> nark nark nark
[18:55] <Pricey> Fuchs: I have been.
[18:55] <Fuchs> Pricey: no, the discussion was whether ops should be rotated between different channels,
[18:55] <Pricey> Fuchs: I'm ignoring that discussion.
[18:56] <phunyguy> apparently.
[18:56] <Fuchs> Pricey: and so it could happen that an operator who does not know that culture might act based on what he is used to, which might not work in that culture
[18:56] <cprofitt> Pricey: that was in reference to my asking about rotating ops through difference channels
[18:56] <Pricey> Fuchs: Sure, whatever, that's fine.
[18:56] <Pricey> You're missing the point.
[18:56] <Fuchs> Pricey: maybe that is not the best idea, then ;)
[18:56] <cprofitt> more of a worry about an op not knowing the culture of a channel
[18:56] <Pricey> Can we please just stop kicking everyone?
[18:56] <chu> The example I gave before was a counter-example to that rotation policy; for the reasons I gave, I would be a terrible op in #ubuntu, but I can op the more "social" channels (well, I believe so, maybe others see differently, no qualms against that)
[18:56] <Fuchs> Pricey: err, you got that completely wrong, neither I nor anyone else suggested or even supported a new op kicking anyone
[18:56] <Pricey> If there's a disruption in a channel, kicking and banning is a bad idea.
[18:57] <Pricey> Fuchs: "if a specific topic or behaviour was so far okay in channel #ubuntu-xy, now the new op comes in and kicks people due to it"
[18:57] <cprofitt> Pricey: it was an example of what could go wrong, not a suggestion
[18:57] <chu> [05:54] <Pricey> If there's a disruption in a channel, kicking and banning is a bad idea. +1
[18:57] <phunyguy> This is making me itch.
[18:57] <Pricey> You could have written "... now the new op comes in and starts trying to tackle the problem, taking people aside etc. etc."
[18:57] <Fuchs> yes, which is a hypothetical situation in case of op rotation (which I, three times at least, said is a bad idea), not what I suggest happens
[18:57] <Fuchs> Pricey: sorry for being direct and blunt, but really, do read the backlog again
[18:58] <Fuchs> I was _at no single point_ suggesting that people should be kicked.
[18:58] <Fuchs> Thank you :)
[18:58] <Pricey> Fuchs: I don't mean to say that you're a bad example, always kicking people etc. et. etc.
[18:58] <Pricey> But I feel that that *does* happen.
[18:58] <phunyguy> yes it does happen, and is my exact beef.
[18:58] <cprofitt> pricey I think we agree that kicking people is a last resort
[18:58] <Pricey> And I think that using examples like that to make your point is a subconscious pointer to a real problem.
[18:58] <cprofitt> at least I do.
[18:58] <phunyguy> Pricey++
[18:59] <Pricey> I think IdleOne's kick of LjL above is a good example.
[18:59] <Fuchs> Pricey: again, sorry, please do read it again. You are currently attacking me based on false assumptions, which is highly unfair.
[18:59] <chu> Yep, that's my only complaint, that's a very large factor in LjL's bigger issue too, not that I want to take the discussion back there.
[19:00] <cprofitt> Pricey: I saw a +q not a kick
[19:00] <cprofitt> did I miss something?
[19:00] <Fuchs> no, you didn't.
[19:00] <Fuchs> there was no kick and no suggestion to kick either.
[19:00] <phunyguy> how is +q any different in this case?
[19:00] <Pricey> Fuchs: I believe I understand the context... rotation would mean uneven application of policies, causing unnecessary friction etc. etc. ?
[19:00] <phunyguy> if anything it is worse than a kick
[19:01] <Fuchs> Pricey: correct, which is why I brought up a possible bad situation that could happen from rotation. After mentioning at least three times that rotation is, in my opinion, a bad idea.
[19:01] <Pricey> Fuchs: Cool, I agree :)
[19:01] <phunyguy> at least with a kick, you can come back.  With a +q, you are essentially banned, but can still see the conversation
[19:01] <Fuchs> Good. Thank you.
[19:02] <Pricey> Fuchs: I hope no op would do that though... see a bad conversation and kick for it. That's my point. It's a bad solution to a perhaps non-problem.
[19:02] <Pricey> (Sure, this is all oversimplifying and no doubt there'll be no end of intricacies in any real-world situation.)
[19:03] <Fuchs> Pricey: well, I took the worst possible case to show why it is a bad idea. Substitute the kick with either a quiet or even catalyzing and it still is bad
[19:03] <Pricey> Fuchs: Far less bad and disruptive though :)
[19:03] <Fuchs> yes, but still bad and unneeded, so why go for "less bad" if you can have "good" instead?
[19:04] <cprofitt> I would agree that any administrative action would potentially escalate the situation, but if a person is causing significant problems for a channel something must be done
[19:04] <cprofitt> is there an issue with different ops not taking 'ideal' action in such cases?
[19:05] <Pricey> Fuchs: The example is grounded in the fact that the action is "bad". I agree that rotation is a silly idea.
[19:06] <cprofitt> Pricey: to give you some background it has been suggested that some operators might need to take a 'break' - I was spitballing ideas to make such breaks seem less like a punishment and more like an earned vacation
[19:06] <Unit193> 1. Maaan, you create a lot of backlog to read...  2. I think this has been sidetracked.
[19:07] <Pricey> cprofitt: I believe I'm up to date.
[19:07] <chu> Unit193: Sidetracked *from*?
[19:07] <phunyguy> no, forced breaks are probably not the solution.
[19:07] <phunyguy> that just creates more tension
[19:07] <Unit193> chu: Getting caught in the details of an example.
[19:07] <cprofitt> forced breaks would produce tension...
[19:07] <cprofitt> I agree
[19:07] <phunyguy> any kind of forced action should absolutely be a last resort.
[19:07] <Unit193> chu: Getting back on now.
[19:08] <phunyguy> that includes op rotation.
[19:08] <cprofitt> but we likely have to find a way for people to de-stress...
[19:08] <cprofitt> even when they do not realize the need themselves
[19:08] <cprofitt> it would be best if fellow ops, friends, could handle that
[19:08] <MooDoo> didn't help that I was rabbiting on as well Unit193 ;)
[19:08] <phunyguy> so, corner them?
[19:09] <cprofitt> no, not corner -- that is why I said friends
[19:09] <phunyguy> still seems that it would cause them to put up a wall.
[19:09] <cprofitt> it has to be received as something from a friend not someone who is going to increase the tension
[19:09] <phunyguy> that will be hard to do in a public forum
[19:09] <cprofitt> that is a very difficult fine line -- as anyone with brothers, sisters or spouses can attest
[19:10] <chu> Yep
[19:10] <cprofitt> phunyguy: I would say such advice should be handled in private not in public
[19:11] <phunyguy> ok, so here is the problem with that, it starts organizing "pacts" of a few ops against one person
[19:11] <cprofitt> I see a simulairty in a parent over reacting in a punishment with a child... the other parent needs to support the spouse, but has to ensure the over reaction is realized by the other parent
[19:12] <cprofitt> phunyguy do you think it is a non-issue or do we need to try and find a good way to deal with these issues?
[19:13] <phunyguy> I think it is an issue 100%
[19:13] <phunyguy> BUT
[19:13] <chu> Maybe we need to play good cop/bad cop. If you get a complaint about op X, find an op you know they are friends with, and an op you know they don't get along with. Get them both to talk up about it.
[19:13] <phunyguy> how can that be dealt with?
[19:14] <MooDoo> chu: that could be very time consuming
[19:14] <cprofitt> chu wouldn't that cause the person to react to the bad cop?
[19:14] <chu> MooDoo: Yeah, unfortunately.
[19:15] <cprofitt> time consuming, but would it be worth it?
[19:15] <MooDoo> can't it just be simple as , x complains about op and ircc council member approach X see if it's a valid complaint then they talk to op ?
[19:15] <chu> cprofitt: I would rather hope it goes the other way, and having both sides of the cube, the person could reason it themselves.
[19:15] <cprofitt> I do not have a lot of experience with good cop v bad cop so I am not sure
[19:17] <chu> I don't either, but much experience playing the devil's advocate, and I take that position to help people reason things out for themselves (not *just* 'cause I'm an ass ;P).
[19:17] <cprofitt> lol
[19:18] <cprofitt> Pricey: any thought, I respect your experience... would love for you to weigh in
[19:20] <Pricey> There are enough processes and procedures.
[19:21] <cprofitt> Pricey: is there an issue with operator behavior?
[19:21] <Pricey> cprofitt: We all make mistakes.
[19:22] <cprofitt> true... I would not consider occassional mistakes an issue overall
[19:23] <Pricey> Given a couple of hours together at a UDS (shame it's now virtual...) I doubt any of us would refuse to buy anyone else in this channel a drink. Things really do get silly over text sometimes.
[19:23] <MooDoo> +1
[19:23] <cprofitt> I agree with that.
[19:24] <cprofitt> I miss physical UDSs
[19:24] <cprofitt> I have made the suggestion that we have a physical UDS once every LTS
[19:24] <Pricey> cprofitt: Awesome, are you financing it?
[19:24] <MooDoo> get this chat on a google+ hangout ;)
[19:25] <phunyguy> Google :(
[19:25] <chu> :(
[19:25] <MooDoo> the only issue with that is you'd probably see some real middle fingers :)
[19:25] <cprofitt> Pricey: I could try to finance it, but I doubt that I can run a debt as far as a government
[19:27] <cprofitt> actually I can't finance it :-)
[19:27] <MooDoo> cprofitt: well that's a bit selfish ;)
[19:27] <cprofitt> true
[19:27] <MooDoo> can't you sweet talk jono or mark?
[19:27] <MooDoo> ;)
[19:28] <chu> I appreciate that he checked his financial statement first.
[19:28] <cprofitt> with three kids I have very little money
[19:28] <cprofitt> I will try sweet talking both jono and Mark
[19:28] <MooDoo> tell me about it, cprofitt my son is minecraft mad at the moment.
[19:28] <cprofitt> not sure it will work though
[19:33] <MooDoo> changing the subject a bit, can someone takea  look at this - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess?action=show&redirect=IrcTeam%2FAppealProcess
[19:34] <MooDoo> is this right? -  <ircc-appeals AT SPAMFREE ubottu DOT com>
[19:34] <MooDoo> ubottu?
[19:34] <cprofitt> MooDoo: not sure
[19:34] <phunyguy> ubottu.com is correct I think
[19:35] <MooDoo> ok i'll shut up :)
[19:35] <cprofitt> no need to shutup .. it was a fair question
[19:35] <Pricey> MooDoo: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess?action=diff&rev1=7&rev2=8 jussi added it so i'd assume it was probably correct.
[19:36] <MooDoo> okey cokey....
[19:42] <AlanBell> hi all
[19:42] <cprofitt> hey AlanBell
[19:43] <MooDoo> hello
[19:44]  * AlanBell reads back lots and lots of stuffs
[19:44] <cprofitt> yes, lots of stuff.
[19:45] <MooDoo> AlanBell: it'll give you a head ache ;)
[19:53] <AlanBell> MooDoo: yeah, it will
[19:53] <MooDoo> :)
[19:54] <AlanBell> ok, first thing that I can actually answer :) <ircc-appeals AT SPAMFREE ubottu DOT com> is the address that creates a ticket in http://ubottu.com/tickets/scp/login.php
[19:54] <AlanBell> so, for appeals, we get a ticket to track
[19:54] <phunyguy> oh, good
[19:54] <MooDoo> ah there is a ticketing system
[19:55] <AlanBell> mostly appeals are of the nature of someone who got abusive, got kicked out, appeals to the IRCC to overturn the decision
[19:55] <Unit193> Did kind of wonder about < IdleOne> I was thinking about this a little earlier. I think a big problem is that we are trying to govern this giant country and not letting each city do it's own thing.
[19:55] <AlanBell> we then spend a ridiculous amount of time and effort that nobody knows about, discussing the matter with the user and *almost* always backing up and supporting the decision of the operator
[19:55] <AlanBell> because the IRCC is there to support and back up the operators
[19:56] <Unit193> (We have a "review IRCC tickets on the agenda for every meeting, didn't everyone know it existed? :/ )
[19:56] <AlanBell> which is what I may have mentioned in the reply I did to the open letter . . .
[19:56] <Pricey> AlanBell: Is that the point of the IRCC?
[19:56] <AlanBell> we are *not* here to regularly review and discipline the operators
[19:56] <AlanBell> Pricey: it is one of our functions, yes
[19:56] <Unit193> IRCC not being IA is a good thing™
[19:57] <Pricey> Unit193: IA?
[19:57] <phunyguy> internal affairs
[19:57] <phunyguy> ?
[19:59] <AlanBell> so one of the things that I have been doing is trying to make sure that regular problem users have a ban history from multiple operators, so they can't claim a vendetta from one operator for example
[20:00] <IdleOne> Pricey: I didn't kick LjL earlier I simply muted him. My intention is not to keep anyone from expressing their opinion on this very heated topic, but I will not let someone blatantly break the CoC and channel guidelines that are currently in place. Especially from someone who helped to create those guidelines and knows better.
[20:00] <AlanBell> there has been quite a lot of conflicting opinion recently on what the IRCC should be doing
[20:01] <phunyguy> I am coming to the conclusion that I don't know enough about the IRCC to make any real recommendations here.
[20:01] <AlanBell> some have suggested that the IRCC should personally interview all the operators in turn, to find out what their opinions on life are or something. Not really something I want to do tbh
[20:02] <AlanBell> we are always available, but proactively going round everyone isn't really what it is about
[20:02] <IdleOne> I also would appreciate that before you go around pointing fingers at me or anyone else, make sure you know what you are talking about. I respect that you have been a long time user and contributor to this community. I know you were one of the original IRCC members.
[20:02] <cprofitt> AlanBell: Yeah... I do not feel that is possible given the time it would take... and the chance for positive results would be low anyway
[20:03] <AlanBell> we really don't do an awful lot apart from protecting ops from appeals, and the occasional channel management decision where one has to be done
[20:03] <cprofitt> IdleOne: what are you talking about?
[20:03] <Pricey> AlanBell: That's a bit sad.
[20:04] <AlanBell> cprofitt: think that was addressed to Pricey
[20:04] <AlanBell> Pricey: in what way?
[20:04]  * cprofitt nods to AlanBell 
[20:04] <AlanBell> so some people think the IRCC should do less, or not exist
[20:04] <cprofitt> ok.. misread that
[20:04] <IdleOne> cprofitt: I don't appreciate having my actions questioned when I know from experience that there was no other choice.
[20:04] <cprofitt> IdleOne: I agree with that.
[20:05] <AlanBell> I am up for making changes, really I am
[20:05] <IdleOne> All I am saying is that in this particular case maybe Pricey is not aware of all the history.
[20:06] <AlanBell> so after the main part of the recent drama, we were discussing factoid over-use, and someone suggested doing a bit of a collaborative review of them, and how we use them
[20:06] <cprofitt> AlanBell: the problem I see is that many of the potential solutions bring with them other issues
[20:06] <AlanBell> this was the *first* actionable suggestion I had seen, so I figured it would be good to get on with it, but there was resistance to it that I don't really understand
[20:07] <phunyguy> I thought the general consensus was, factoids should be for technical things only, not op issues.
[20:07] <phunyguy> like !grub vs !language
[20:07] <phunyguy> maybe I misunderstood?
[20:07] <AlanBell> we have no idea what the general concensus is
[20:08] <phunyguy> ok.
[20:08] <phunyguy> well that is how I see it.  So there's that.
[20:08] <AlanBell> some people suggested reviewing it, so we started to do so
[20:08] <IdleOne> it was an easy way to get people to work together again
[20:08] <AlanBell> it is possible that we will delete every non-technical factoid, or some of them, or none of them
[20:08] <cprofitt> Not sure why there would be resistence to a review of it either AlanBell
[20:08] <AlanBell> but I am not going to autocratically decide
[20:08] <IdleOne> and maybe start to rebuild some semblance of a team
[20:09]  * cprofitt nods to IdleOne 
[20:09] <Daekdroom> Factoids like !ru, !es etc, are useful to redirect people, tho, specially when they don't know English well (or at all)
[20:09] <phunyguy> I can agree there
[20:09] <AlanBell> http://pad.ubuntu.com/factoids
[20:09] <IdleOne> some people saw it as an attempt to sweep things under the rug
[20:09] <phunyguy> Daekdroom: that's understandable
[20:09] <phunyguy> IdleOne: i don't agree with them.
[20:09] <AlanBell> so that is the list we started to put together, but then we got stomped on for reasons I don't think were sufficiently well explained to me
[20:10] <phunyguy> "Either you have not been granted access to this resource or your entitlement has timed out. Please try again."
[20:10] <phunyguy> :(
[20:11] <IdleOne> popey: can you give phunyguy access to the etherpad please
[20:11] <phunyguy> I already requested it on LP
[20:11] <phunyguy> just needs to be approved
[20:11] <popey> IdleOne: sure
[20:11] <IdleOne> thank you
[20:11] <phunyguy> yes, thank you
[20:11] <AlanBell> phunyguy: approved
[20:12] <IdleOne> ah didn't know AlanBell could do it too
[20:12] <AlanBell> yeah, I was somewhat involved in etherpad use for UDS
[20:13] <popey> yeah, there's a few admins
[20:13] <IdleOne> AlanBell: maybe adding the various ops teams would be good?
[20:14] <AlanBell> sure, adding teams is a touch non-trivial as it sometimes emails every team member, but the ops teams I can do
[20:14] <AlanBell> done
[20:16] <IdleOne> yeah, you know I don't mind so much getting a few extra emails. easy to delete what is not important and move on with my life :)
[20:16] <AlanBell> yeah, just a bit scary when you do it to ~locoteams or whatever
[20:18] <cprofitt> looks like a good document to work on as a team.
[20:18] <cprofitt> from my perspective having some warning factoids -- that everyone agrees with the wording on might be helpful
[20:19] <IdleOne> I'm no team building expert or anything but it seems to me that a team is only a team if they work together on a real concrete, tangible?, project.
[20:19] <cprofitt> phunyguy: you can offer a suggested alternate to any of the factoids on there.
[20:19] <cprofitt> IdleOne: I agree
[20:19] <phunyguy> I am adding my notes.
[20:19] <cprofitt> gentleman... I need to go cook dinner for the family, but I will be back
[20:20] <AlanBell> that is great phunyguy :)
[20:20] <Pricey> cprofitt: I'd far prefer to see nice human to human conversation than "warning factoids" used at every possible opportunity. I'm pretty sure !coc was almost a meme at one point.
[20:21] <AlanBell> !coc
[20:21]  * AlanBell adds to the list
[20:22] <AlanBell> hmm, it actually has helpful information in it now
[20:22] <IdleOne> it was along with a few others. That is actually what brought on the discussion of over use of factoids by ops and users. that eventually turned into improving some of the factoids but the idea of using them less was not put aside.
[20:23] <AlanBell> the idea is that we improve some, ditch some, decide to keep some
[20:23] <AlanBell> but we decide together, not by IRCC dictat, because we don't really do that
[20:23] <IdleOne> As ops we can start setting the example by not using them as much or at all if possible and also improve/delete what factoids we have.
[20:24] <AlanBell> and we can use that review to start more of a wider conversation about how we use them in a human kinda way
[20:25] <IdleOne> This btw was one of the things that many ops and former ops had issue with. We are not human enough.
[20:26] <AlanBell> turing test for all operators
[20:27] <IdleOne> Sure this factoid thing is most definitely not the start point to solving all the issues we have, but we have to start somewhere. I doubt there will ever be consensus on *the* starting point.
[20:28] <AlanBell> I don't have another starting point really
[20:28] <IdleOne> neither do I
[20:28] <AlanBell> I know rww and others think that it is wandering off and failing to address the real issues . . .
[20:28] <AlanBell> but without knowing what the real issues are in an addressable way, I have nowhere else to start
[20:29] <AlanBell> if someone wants to suggest another starting point (apart from the individual interviews with operators to decide if they are human enough, because that isn't going to happen)
[20:30] <IdleOne> phunyguy has mentioned a couple but I think the solution to what he said boils down to we aren't human enough.
[20:30] <phunyguy> Do I have to save these changes on the etherpad, or does it just do it on its own?
[20:31] <IdleOne> auto saves
[20:31] <phunyguy> ok good.
[20:32] <AlanBell> multiplayer notepad, it saves every keystroke
[20:34] <phunyguy> good.  I have made my edits.
[20:34] <phunyguy> I hope I did it right
[20:36] <AlanBell> looks good to me, the plan is/was to gather general opinions from more people, and have a team meeting on wednesday 19th march where we would make a final decision about each one
[20:37] <AlanBell> we have had a general principal of discussing things at any time, but deciding things at a booked time
[20:38] <IdleOne> setting a date for a final decision to be made gives people a deadline to get things worked on.
[20:38] <AlanBell> that way people don't miss the end of the discussion and the decision if they don't want to, they can arrange to be there
[20:38] <IdleOne> without a deadline you never get things done. Least that is how I am.
[20:38] <phunyguy> ^
[20:39] <IdleOne> I've been meaning to build a shed for the past 20 years
[20:39] <IdleOne> silly example I know
[20:39] <AlanBell> we could all decide what colour to paint it
[20:50] <MooDoo> aurbegine ;)
[20:51] <IdleOne> I'm not a fan off eggplant
[20:51] <IdleOne> of*
[20:53] <AlanBell> #dd4814
[20:53] <MooDoo> sky blue is a good colour for a shed
[20:54] <Fuchs> note to self: remove this channel from auto-attach
[20:55] <MooDoo> glad I run irssi in a ssh session, i'm never leaving
[21:38]  * rww yawns
[21:39] <MooDoo> tired?  bored?
[21:39] <rww> just woke up
[21:40] <MooDoo> lol 21:40 pm for me
[21:40] <rww> it's past 2pm here, but it's a weekend, and daylight saving time just kicked in, so i get a free pass
[21:40]  * rww reads scrollback
[21:52] <rww> AlanBell: yeah, I was pondering that opinion last night, and I retract my objection to factoid review, it's a reasonable start to one of the multitude of issues we have
[21:52] <AlanBell> thanks rww
[21:52] <rww> and as far as op rotation: there are some ops that are good at opping some particular channel(s) and would be a bad fit for other channel(s), which would make that challenging
[21:53] <AlanBell> oh, yeah, op rotation is another actionable suggestion I suppose, I am personally unconvinced it is a workable one, but I should acknowledge it as a suggestion
[21:54] <rww> i feel a bit useless right now in that I can see some things that are wrong but don't have suggestions for improvement for whatever reason, so i am talking less than usual (which perhaps means that i am talking the same as a normal person, i dunno)
[21:55] <MooDoo> if ops are comfortable in one channel and you rotate them, surley they would leave and you'd be in a worse state that you are now?
[21:55] <rww> they'd be unhappy, and the users of the channel would probably be unhappy
[21:56] <AlanBell> yeah, ops generally op the channels they participate in
[21:56] <AlanBell> you can't just be assigned #kubuntu for a week and be expected to sit there waiting for something to happen
[21:56] <rww> e.g. I have ops in #ubuntu-devel and have zero interest in actually reading that channel or opping it, I'm just there to deal with blatant spam. If someone decided to rotate me from #ubuntu to #ubuntu-devel, I would be unhappy.
[21:56] <AlanBell> however, that is a suggestion for change that has been made
[21:57] <rww> ditto #ubuntu to #lubuntu ;)
[21:57] <MooDoo> can't you have a ops section that is a group for ops that don't mind being shuffled around?
[21:57]  * AlanBell is off to watch telly for a bit o/
[21:57] <MooDoo> laters
[21:58] <rww> Since we're throwing suggestions out there, I just had a thought. I haven't eaten yet today so it's probably a bad one tho. Stop having an IRC Council and formal IRC Team, and make an #ubuntu team, an #ubuntu-offtopic team, etc., work by consensus in those teams, and have here or #ubuntu-ops as a collaboration space much like one of #ubuntu-irc's functions was supposed to be collaboration between non-core ops
[22:06] <hggdh>  well, we can also see ops rotation as enforced time off -- op 1 takes a leave, op 2 comes in
[22:07] <IdleOne> it is something to look at for sure but i don't see it as an option that we can apply quickly
[22:07] <IdleOne> could be a good thing to implement with new ops
[22:11] <rww> and opt-in with existing ops
[22:11] <IdleOne> yup
[22:13] <IdleOne> I do think that very strict set of guidelines to how this rotation will happen and when is needed before anything gets started
[22:14] <IdleOne> exactly how much time before an op is rotated? which channels do we go to and from? all these things need to be clear before hand
[22:15] <phunyguy> What?
[22:15] <phunyguy> no!
[22:15] <phunyguy> I am not OK with this
[22:15] <hggdh> a priori, I think that 2 years would be a good span.
[22:15] <rww> 2 years on, 2 years off?
[22:15] <hggdh> 2 years in, enforced vacation for -- say 6 months
[22:15] <hggdh> rww: no
[22:17] <IdleOne> phunyguy: you are no longer a new op :)
[22:17] <IdleOne> anything that starts would start after your arrival
[22:17] <hggdh> one of the issues I have seen here since I came is turf. King of the Hill. Whatever you want to name it. Rotating ops this way might alleviate it, and might as well help in spreading the culture of a channel
[22:17] <phunyguy> still not OK with it
[22:17] <phunyguy> as a new op I wouldn't be either
[22:18] <hggdh> phunyguy: sorry, wouldn't be either what?
[22:18] <phunyguy> I wouldn't be OK with it.  I probably need to read the backlog though
[22:18] <phunyguy> not giving it my full attention, but the initiall thing I just read about rotating ops through channels, doesn't sit well with me
[22:18] <hggdh> phunyguy: also, please note that these are *options* we are all putting up. Which ones make sense, or not, are to be found via this discussion
[22:19] <phunyguy> hence me discussing.  :)
[22:19] <hggdh> but I personally expect something more detailed than "I am not OK" ;-)
[22:20] <phunyguy> yes, I apologize.  I can't give this my full attention at the moment
[22:21] <IdleOne> no problem, take your time
[22:21] <IdleOne> nothing is being decided, we are all just brain storming
[22:22] <hggdh> phunyguy: no problems. Keep it in the backburner, and omment on it later on. Remember, these are *options*, probably mal-formed ideas. Perhaps some -- like mine -- deserve nothing better than being shot down as fast as possible. But, still, if we do not put them (ideas) up for discussion, nothing will happen.
[22:23] <IdleOne> I think one rule the IRCC should make (not now) is to make all final decision during meetings.
[22:24] <IdleOne> this is something that can be voted on at the next meeting maybe
[22:24] <Pricey> IdleOne: We should decide that at a meeting first.
[22:25] <rww> does this include decisions that aren't usually up for public vote? e.g. ban appeals?
[22:25] <IdleOne> Pricey: lol :)
[22:25] <IdleOne> rww: I'm not sure really
[22:26] <IdleOne> again, still brain storming stuff
[22:31] <cprofitt> the best thing I am seeing today is discussion...
[22:31] <cprofitt> it is starting to move things forward
[22:32] <IdleOne> and all it took was me setting fire to the house
[22:32]  * IdleOne stops kidding
[22:32] <cprofitt> lol
[22:33] <IdleOne> I agree. I like that we are talking about all these things.
[22:44] <AlanBell> 22:23 < IdleOne> I think one rule the IRCC should make (not now) is to make all final decision during meetings.
[22:44] <AlanBell> we kinda do
[22:44] <AlanBell> except, that no decisions are final ;)
[22:44] <IdleOne> true
[22:45] <IdleOne> Maybe what I am saying is that it would be nice to be able to speak in a public channel about something without it being assumed it is the "official" position
[22:46] <IdleOne> just because I might say rww smells weird on thursday doesn't mean the entire ircc thinks so
[22:51] <rww> they do though ;(
[22:51] <rww> i feel like that's been more of a thing with this IRCC than previous ones, for some reason, especially w.r.t. chairperson saying things
[22:51] <IdleOne> well yeah. ok, bad example
[22:52] <IdleOne> rww: so it isn't just me who feels this
[22:52] <IdleOne> ?
[22:52] <rww> probably because it got given to the loudest IRCC member :3
[22:52] <IdleOne> well I'm glad you said it
[22:52] <IdleOne> I am rather loud
[22:52] <rww> well, so am I
[22:53] <IdleOne> a little, but I like that about you.
[22:53] <IdleOne> there is no uncertainty with you, least not for me.
[22:54] <AlanBell> rww: I think it is a lot less with this IRCC actually
[22:54] <AlanBell> I was much more kinda spokespersonish last IRCC, this time so far we have all been speaking quite a bit
[22:55] <AlanBell> but I think you sort of missed a couple of years :(
[22:55] <rww> true
[23:01] <IdleOne> maybe what the ircc should do is more like what the loco council does. They let each loco do their own thing and check in now and then to see how everything is going.
[23:01] <IdleOne> I think this is basically what rww said also
[23:02] <cprofitt> that sounds like a reasonable suggestion IdleOne
[23:02] <rww> IdleOne: yeah, I was drawing off of the LoCo Council there
[23:03] <rww> as a LoCo team lead, my perception is that the LC doesn't get involved in day to day LoCo stuff unless we go chat with them, or there are complaints, or there's a health check
[23:03] <rww> which is probably a saner position to be in than the cat herding that IRCC tries to do right now
[23:03]  * AlanBell wonders what cat herding we have been trying to do
[23:04] <rww> "An idiomatic saying that refers to an attempt to control or organize a class of entities which are uncontrollable or chaotic. Implies a task that is extremely difficult or impossible to do, primarily due to chaotic factors."
[23:04] <rww> that sounds like the entire job description of IRCC to me
[23:04] <AlanBell> really, meetings have been like this
[23:04] <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/IRCC/20131027
[23:05] <AlanBell> action packed
[23:05] <rww> i'm not talking about meetings, i'm talking about the 99% of your recent job that's been outside of them
[23:05] <rww> anyways, this is tangential
[23:06] <AlanBell> so yeah, there has been some firefighting recently, but we have absolutely not been micromanaging channels
[23:17] <MooDoo> oh dear LjL isn't happy
[23:17] <cprofitt> rww: the loco team does have to get involved in some day to day things for some teams
[23:18] <rww> cprofitt: after complaints and such, yes
[23:18] <cprofitt> no, not just after complaints
[23:18] <cprofitt> if there is a team that is struggling they will step in to help
[23:18] <rww> okays, add that to the exceptions above, then
[23:18] <cprofitt> most things are reactive, but some are proactive