[12:00] <jared> !rmb
[12:01] <system76chick> Hello!
[12:01] <jared> Evening/morning/whatever it is in your time system76chick  :)
[12:01] <jared> We're just trying to rustle up enough board members now
[12:02] <system76chick> Back at ya! Very early here :) Awesome!
[12:09] <jared> Sorry system76chick, we're still working quorum. micahg and I are here we need 2 more
[12:09] <jared> !rmb
[12:09] <jared> Ping!
[12:11] <system76chick> Sounds good, I'm here!
[12:12] <pleia2> I can pitch in if needed
[12:13] <jared> pleia2: thanks that's a 3rd
[12:14] <system76chick> Good morning Lyz, thanks for being here!
[12:15] <pleia2> morning :)
[12:16] <cprofitt> here
[12:17] <jose> morning, everyone
[12:17] <cprofitt> I can help as well
[12:17] <jared> cprofitt: great you're the 4th :)
[12:19] <pleia2> shall we begin?
[12:19] <system76chick> totally!
[12:20] <jared> pleia2: just setting up :)
[12:20] <jared> #startmeeting
[12:20] <meetingology> Meeting started Wed Mar 19 12:20:21 2014 UTC.  The chair is jared. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[12:20] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[12:21] <jared> Hello and welcome to the Ubuntu Membership Review Board for the 1200 UTC meeting for March 19, 2014. The wiki page for the Review Board is available here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership/Boards
[12:22] <jared> Just as a quick introduction we're going to be running with 2 Community Council members joining us to fill quorum, thanks cprofitt and pleia2
[12:22] <jared> There is precedent for CC members filling in on the membership board to reach quorum so while it's not a written rule we're going to run with it
[12:23] <jared> #voters jared micahg pleia2 cprofitt
[12:23] <meetingology> Current voters: cprofitt jared micahg pleia2
[12:23] <jared> #topic system76chick 's membership application
[12:23] <jared> system76chick: can you please give a 2 - 3 sentence introduction of yourself to the board
[12:24] <jared> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/system76chick
[12:26] <system76chick> My name is Emma and I live in Colorado. I love Ubuntu and I'm the leader of the Colorado Ubuntu team.
[12:27] <jared> system76chick: I see you've been involved with getting the Colorado back to being approved, can you explain a bit about what that entailed for you, is there much support over there?
[12:30] <system76chick> I'm responsible for planning all our events, updating our team wiki, responding to new Colorado users on our mailing list and encouraging local people to start using Ubuntu by helping install on their computer. For our team approval, I created a plan to get our team more active and everyone was very supportive of my initiative.
[12:31] <jared> system76chick: and how have you found the good people of Colorado? Do you get many regulars pitching in to help?
[12:32] <system76chick> People come to my events and offer advice on how to get more active. My first release party had 20+ members.
[12:32] <pleia2> that's quite good
[12:32] <jared> system76chick: good effort really, these things can be hard to get motivation for
[12:32] <system76chick> Team members help respond to mailing list inquiries if people don't email me directly.
[12:33] <jared> system76chick: good to hear, I am looking over your application and see some testimonials which is great, are there any loco members here to cheer for you?
[12:33] <jose> well, there's a loco council member, does that count?
[12:33] <cprofitt> system76chick: how many years have you been involved with the Ubuntu community?
[12:34] <system76chick> Most of my coworkers are part of the team, so it helps to work with them every day. My boss is very supportive of everything I try.
[12:34] <micahg> jose: sure :)
[12:34] <pleia2> that's great :)
[12:34] <jared> jose: indeed, just seeing if there are locals as well :)
[12:34] <system76chick> 2 years, Jose and Lyz hopefully!
[12:34] <pleia2> it's 6:30 am there in CO :\
[12:35] <jose> I wanted to mention how responsive system76chick was during the verification process, we tried to do this as quickly as possible and with her we got everything ready to go in less than a week
[12:35] <jared> jose: that sounds like a well functioning team if they can put it all together in under a week.
[12:35] <system76chick> Thank you Jose. You were a major help in that process. Your support really kept me going!
[12:36] <jose> :)
[12:36] <jose> the team is going good as far as the LC concerns, so yep!
[12:36] <cprofitt> sounds like you are doing some good work system76chick
[12:36] <system76chick> Thank you! We have 5 events in April!
[12:37] <pleia2> wow, nice
[12:37] <micahg> very nice
[12:38] <system76chick> I hope to get our team blog updated, but I need to get volunteers from our team to help. That would be a great resource for new Ubuntu users in Colorado
[12:39] <jared> system76chick: seems like we've run out of questions, so thanks for that
[12:39] <jared> #vote Please vote on system76chick 's application for Ubuntu Membership
[12:39] <meetingology> Please vote on: Please vote on system76chick 's application for Ubuntu Membership
[12:39] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)
[12:39] <micahg> +1
[12:39] <meetingology> +1 received from micahg
[12:39] <pleia2> +1
[12:39] <meetingology> +1 received from pleia2
[12:39] <cprofitt> +1
[12:39] <meetingology> +1 received from cprofitt
[12:39] <jared> +1 good work with the loco
[12:39] <meetingology> +1 good work with the loco received from jared
[12:40] <jared> #endvote
[12:40] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Please vote on system76chick 's application for Ubuntu Membership
[12:40] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[12:40] <meetingology> Motion carried
[12:40] <pleia2> congrats system76chick :)
[12:40] <jared> #action system76chick to be added to the Ubuntu Members team
[12:40] <meetingology> ACTION: system76chick to be added to the Ubuntu Members team
[12:40] <system76chick> I'm an Ubuntu member now? That's awesome!!!!
[12:40] <jared> Congratulations system76chick, thanks for a well prepared application. It made the job easy.
[12:41] <system76chick> I'm so excited! I won't let you guys down, I promise!
[12:41] <jose> congratulations, system76chick!
[12:41] <cprofitt> congrats system76chick
[12:41] <system76chick> Thank you, I really appreciate your support!
[12:42] <jared> I can't see the other applicants here so I think that makes the meeting short
[12:43] <system76chick> I appreciate everyone attending and hope you all have a fantastic day/night
[12:43] <jared> system76chick: keep up the great work :)
[12:44] <system76chick> Thank you!
[12:45] <jared> #endmeeting
[12:45] <meetingology> Meeting ended Wed Mar 19 12:45:22 2014 UTC.
[12:45] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-03-19-12.20.moin.txt
[12:45] <jose> thanks everyone
[12:45] <jared> system76chick: I've added you to the ubuntu members LP team as well now
[12:45] <system76chick> Awesome. Thank you Jared :)
[17:58] <AlanBell> hi all, IRC meeting starting shortly, please fill your glasses
[17:59]  * IdleOne puts on his gloves and protective helmet
[17:59]  * MooDoo watches from behind protective glass
[17:59]  * AlanBell watches from behind protective wine glass
[18:00]  * hggdh goes create a bit of space for more coffee
[18:00]  * MooDoo also watches his 2 year old runnind the living room watching his wifes ipad.
[18:02] <AlanBell> ok, lets get started
[18:03] <AlanBell> #startmeeting IRC Operator team meeting
[18:03] <meetingology> Meeting started Wed Mar 19 18:03:04 2014 UTC.  The chair is AlanBell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[18:03] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[18:03] <IdleOne> o/
[18:03] <AlanBell> agenda is over here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[18:05] <AlanBell> not sure where the meetingology logs are for the last meeting, but here is the day log http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/01/22/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
[18:05] <AlanBell> no specific ation items recoreded but we did quite a bit of assorted stuff since then :/
[18:05] <knome> http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-01-22-18.01.log.html
[18:06] <AlanBell> ah, silly me I was looking in the #meetingology channel not ubuntu-meeting
[18:06] <AlanBell> ok, so moving on
[18:06] <AlanBell> #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker
[18:07] <AlanBell> just checking the tracker . . .
[18:07] <AlanBell> no open tickets
[18:08] <knome> what's the tracker URL, and is it publicly accessible
[18:08] <AlanBell> for those that don't know, the tracker is an osticket instance running here http://ubottu.com/tickets
[18:08] <AlanBell> tickets get created when people email the appeals address
[18:08] <knome> ack
[18:09] <AlanBell> it isn't publicly accessible, but every meeting we declare anything going on in it at a high level
[18:09] <phunyguy> (here)
[18:10] <AlanBell> #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council
[18:10] <AlanBell> we have a bug though
[18:10] <AlanBell> bug 892501 has been reopened, and we can discuss that in more detail in a later item on the agenda
[18:11] <AlanBell> but first . . .
[18:11] <AlanBell> #topic The IRCC going forward
[18:11] <AlanBell> so, we have a newish IRCC, following the elections in December
[18:12] <AlanBell> since then there have been rather a lot of stressful interactions and IdleOne has sent an email of resignation to the list
[18:13] <AlanBell> so we are back down to 4 members, AlanBell Pici Tm_T hggdh
[18:13] <AlanBell> there have also been other discussions and suggestions about the IRCC, whether it is right for the team and so on
[18:14] <AlanBell> I would be interested in feedback from others on what we do from here
[18:14] <not_rww> o/
[18:15] <hggdh> so would I...
[18:15]  * phunyguy ponders
[18:15] <MooDoo> Has the resignation been accepted?
[18:15] <AlanBell> all options are open, we could have a vote of confidence in the current IRCC, we could have a vote on whether there should be an IRCC, we could open an election to fill the seat, we could invite the CC to fill the remaining seat
[18:15] <not_rww> AlanBell: in terms of immediate issues, I would prefer either IdleOne un-resigning and being not-chairperson, or sticking to 4 members. I don't think electing another person is a good idea at this time.
[18:15] <hggdh> MooDoo: yes, it has
[18:15] <AlanBell> MooDoo: good question
[18:16] <phunyguy> I do not think it should go away.   The IRCC has it's place in my eyes, and to do away with it would leave a giant hole.  Just my two cents.
[18:16] <knome> does the IRCC have the teams support and is it trusted to steer the team?
[18:16] <IdleOne> I have already stated that I am willing to un-resign with the coditions that rww has mentioned.
[18:16] <AlanBell> quite whether a resignation can be withdrawn, I have no idea, we don't have a procedural path for that as such, but if the CC agrees I would see no problem with it
[18:17] <ikonia> I see a problem with it personally
[18:17] <IdleOne> I think this might be something that the current four member, the CC, and myself might want to discuss.
[18:17] <knome> i don't think you can force anybody to stay a member.
[18:17] <ikonia> IdleOne: has resigned without notice or hand over - done, move on
[18:18] <knome> if it's not accepted, the resigned memeber can just do nothing
[18:18] <ikonia> you have 4 members - move on
[18:18] <AlanBell> yeah, we can't "not accept" the resignation
[18:18] <knome> and it is effectively the same as "accepting" the resignal
[18:18] <MooDoo> I don't think it's as simple as that
[18:18] <ikonia> it is as simple as that
[18:18] <phunyguy> I agree that flipflopping resignations is probably not a good idea....
[18:18] <AlanBell> whether it can be withdrawn is an open question
[18:19] <MooDoo> imo if it's been 5 members, then it needs to be 5 members
[18:19] <AlanBell> we don't neccessarily need to do anything about it
[18:19] <knome> whether it can be withdrawn is up for the whole teams' approval, not the IRCC only
[18:19] <ikonia> MooDoo: why ? why does it need to be 5 members
[18:19] <ikonia> why the magic of 5
[18:19] <AlanBell> we had 4 members for some time, we gave the casting vote to the CC
[18:19] <IdleOne> knome: why? the whole team didn't get a vote on who got elected
[18:19] <ikonia> someone doesn't want to do the job - thats fine, they  have left, thats fine too, why make an issue out of them coming and going
[18:19] <phunyguy> ^ yes the odd number is what needs to be.  Not even.
[18:20] <MooDoo> what phunyguy said :)
[18:20] <ikonia> I'm sure 4 people can manage to work out a judgment
[18:20] <AlanBell> ikonia: I am not really, but it would be a failure not to have this agenda item
[18:20] <ikonia> and it can go to the CC if someone feels a real deal breaker is needed
[18:20] <ikonia> AlanBell: it's good that it's on the agenda
[18:20] <knome> "Members of the Ubuntu IRC Members Team are eligible to vote."
[18:21] <IdleOne> knome: not all those members got to vote afaik
[18:21] <MooDoo> ikonia: but going to the CC just drags things out surely when it can be sorted by the power of 5?  just my two cents :)
[18:21] <AlanBell> knome: yes, that is the voting group, which isn't quite a lineup with the operator team
[18:21] <ikonia> MooDoo: it can be sorted by the power of 4 quite easy
[18:21] <cprofitt> I would prefer not to have the CC have to get involved just to break a tie
[18:21] <AlanBell> IdleOne: all that group did, just not all operators are in that groups
[18:21] <ikonia> these aren't life and deather changes, a "hung" issue has pretty much never happened
[18:21] <knome> IdleOne, that's a shortcoming of the voting procedure, and does by no means mean that it's okay for the IRCC to withdraw a resignation
[18:22] <AlanBell> cprofitt: mostly an accademic issue, we have never had a tie
[18:22] <ikonia> exactly
[18:22]  * cprofitt nods
[18:22] <ikonia> so 4 members, move on,
[18:22] <cprofitt> on the subject of resignation and withdrawl
[18:22] <IdleOne> anyway, not a big deal for me. I resigned and I'll stick to my choice. I offered to help if the need was there but I don't want to cause more problems. So I am fine with not being on the IRCC.
[18:22] <elfy> cprofitt: I'd agree with that
[18:22] <cprofitt> I think the question is less about the resignation and more about what it implies
[18:22] <ikonia> IdleOne: if you want to do it - do it, if you don't thats fine too, it's just the limbo state that seems pointless to drag out
[18:22] <knome> if the irc members team isn't up-to-date, update it
[18:22] <IdleOne> I suggest we consider this matter closed.
[18:22] <not_rww> with 4 people, majority is 3. with 5 people, majority is 3. shouldn't make much of a difference in reality, especially since everyone's usually on the same page
[18:23] <cprofitt> I can certainly appreciate that the resignation was done in the heat of the moment while emotions were running high
[18:23] <not_rww> especially since IdleOne doesn't seem the sort of person to avoid giving input just because he's not on IRCC *ducks*
[18:23] <cprofitt> I can understand not wanting to alow a person to un-resign...
[18:23] <IdleOne> not_rww: I'm not one to hold my tongue that is for sure
[18:24] <ikonia> in fairness there was a real short list of candidates and people got pushed into doing it because no-one wanted to do it
[18:24] <cprofitt> the question, for me, is if IdleOne can do the job or if allowing him to come back would negatively impact the team in the future
[18:24] <cprofitt> +1 ikonia
[18:24] <AlanBell> I think my view is that withdrawing a resignation is a rule we don't have, and probably don't want to have
[18:24] <cprofitt> I think that is the larger issue -- not many candidates
[18:24] <cprofitt> AlanBell: I agree...
[18:24] <cprofitt> accept the resignation
[18:24] <AlanBell> regardless of the circumstances of this one
[18:25] <phunyguy> this is why I don't agree that this should be brushed off as "it happened, move on"
[18:25] <ikonia> cprofitt: that is how I see it, IdleOne pretty much stuck his name in the hat due to lack of people coming forward
[18:25] <knome> nobody answered my first question:
[18:25] <knome> 20:16  knome: does the IRCC have the teams support and is it trusted to steer the team?
[18:25] <cprofitt> that does not exclude a person from serving again in the future though does it?
[18:25] <knome> which is definitely related to the IRCC going forward...
[18:25] <hggdh> cprofitt: no, it does not exclude
[18:25] <AlanBell> cprofitt: no, it certainly doesn't
[18:25] <cprofitt> good question knome
[18:25] <hggdh> but knome's question is, I think, important
[18:25] <ikonia> knome: the last IRCC term was the best there has been, the new one is made up of mostly the same people, I have no reason to doubt the individuals
[18:25] <AlanBell> so if we decided to fill the seat at the end of the term or before then IdleOne would be most welcome to stand
[18:26] <cprofitt> so if it does not exclude a person from serving again... use your normal procedure to fill the fifth slot
[18:26] <phunyguy> I can agree with that.
[18:26] <knome> ikonia, i'm not doubting anything either, but i want to raise the question up
[18:26] <phunyguy> put it up to another vote... the same way the IRCC is voted upon today?
[18:26] <IdleOne> cprofitt: I agree wit not_rww another election now is just going to cause more problems. The IRCC can effectively do the job with 4 members
[18:26] <phunyguy> oh.
[18:27] <MooDoo> so basically stick with 4 until the next election?
[18:27] <cprofitt> then we can go with 4... just follow the established procedure for restaffing
[18:27] <phunyguy> I just don't think it should be vacant if it dosn't have to be.
[18:27] <AlanBell> yeah, so are we agreed, carry on with 4, fill the 5th seat at some point when it seems like a good idea, but no urgency to that
[18:27] <hggdh> +1
[18:27] <IdleOne> not to mention I doubt there will be any more volunteers this time around especially with all that has been going on
[18:27] <cprofitt> I would agree with focusing on getting the team healthy
[18:27] <phunyguy> I would volunteer, but not a member, etc.
[18:28] <MooDoo> phunyguy: snap!
[18:28] <ikonia> IdleOne: that is a real concern, especially based on the last time
[18:28] <not_rww> phunyguy: I think it has to be. Another election would be distracting and add another person to an already-confusing dynamic.
[18:28] <MooDoo> I would stick with 4 until the next election go to CC if needed and let IdleOne stand if he wants to?
[18:28]  * MooDoo shuts up
[18:28] <AlanBell> part of the issue was the timing of the open letter, which was just before the call for candidates
[18:29] <AlanBell> (I actually delayed the call for candidates by a few days as a result)
[18:29] <phunyguy> OK I can agree with it staying 4 members then.  We can revisit later.
[18:29] <AlanBell> but anyhow, I think we have a route forward which is what I wanted from this agenda item
[18:29] <Tm_T> hi
[18:30]  * phunyguy looks at his watch and taps foot at Tm_T
[18:30] <not_rww> I'm interested in discussing knome's question next, personally.
[18:30] <knome> if nobody "wants" to be on the IRCC, and only do it because "nobody else does", can *i* trust that the IRCC actually does their job well, and in the best intents for the team?
[18:30] <IdleOne> yes you can
[18:30] <knome> because?
[18:30] <phunyguy> knome: that's a loaded question.
[18:30] <AlanBell> #agreed stick with 4 people on the IRCC until further notice
[18:30] <phunyguy> knome: because that person may have the ability, but not the confidence.
[18:30] <ikonia> before we go any futher would it be possible to have a meeting without any more "jokey" comments
[18:31] <ikonia> and actually disuss things without these off track comments
[18:31] <knome> phunyguy, of course it's a loaded question, everything is.
[18:31] <IdleOne> The four members on the IRCC are most trustworthy and in all my time on this team they have always acted in the best interest of the community
[18:31] <knome> if somebody doesn't have the confidence, can i trust they are able to deliver their best?
[18:31] <AlanBell> knome: there were more candidates than places
[18:32] <phunyguy> knome: in most cases, yes, because they are judging themselves and put more time into their decision.
[18:32] <ikonia> knome: I suggest anyone who isn't confident mails the team
[18:32] <hggdh> knome: you mean the team's confidence, right?
[18:32] <ikonia> rather than call it out in public
[18:32] <ikonia> then their individual issues can be addressed
[18:32] <AlanBell> ikonia: calling it out in public is fine, as I said, all options are on the table
[18:32] <ikonia> (team = council )
[18:32] <not_rww> My main concern with IRCC (not the current iteration, this has been a general thing) is that issues tend to take forever to get resolved. I don't know if that's just me being impatient and/or expecting too much for people in charge of real-time chat, or a genuine problem.
[18:32] <knome> sure.
[18:32] <ikonia> AlanBell: it's not really going to go anywhere is it
[18:32] <ikonia> I have confidence / I don't - discuss
[18:33] <not_rww> So I have the habit of not having confidence that issues are going to get sorted out promptly.
[18:33] <ikonia> the issue is with $user / IRC Council
[18:33] <knome> what not_rww said is also my concern as well
[18:33] <AlanBell> not_rww: got a specific example?
[18:33] <not_rww> But that's an institutional issue. In terms of the specific people we have right now, I have confidence that they will do the position to the best of their abilities, while hampered by institutional issues.
[18:33] <AlanBell> it probably is fair that we try to slow things down sometimes
[18:34] <knome> floodbots?
[18:34] <AlanBell> and sometimes we are slow due to availablility and reluctance to deal with things
[18:34] <not_rww> AlanBell: LjL comes to mind. I think he's stated, and I strongly agree, that that took way too long.
[18:34] <cprofitt> not_rww: I think in many cases when you have a group of people that are tasked with making a decision that delay is part of the process.
[18:34] <not_rww> AlanBell: FloodBots should have had a decision ages ago.
[18:34] <cprofitt> I would assume 'easy topics' do not get elevated to the IRCC
[18:34] <knome> AlanBell, reluctance... well said.
[18:34] <cprofitt> it is the difficult ones that do
[18:34] <ikonia> not_rww: who actually are you ? is not_rww your normal nick name ?
[18:34] <ikonia> are you rww ?
[18:34] <not_rww> ikonia: yes
[18:34] <ikonia> ok, cool
[18:35] <knome> AlanBell, so if the IRCC is "reluctant" to act on things, should i trust them doing their best for the team?
[18:35] <knome> how can we deal with that reluctancy?
[18:35] <not_rww> I could think of others that are also, as cprofitt said, difficult decisions. But the standard IRCC response in the past has tended to be inaction, and that needs to stop.
[18:35] <cprofitt> knome - reluctant does not mean unwilling...
[18:35] <AlanBell> there are quite a few things that we did reluctantly recently, we did them though
[18:36] <cprofitt> reluctant means a realization that they need to take things slowly...
[18:36] <knome> cprofitt, i acknowledge
[18:36] <cprofitt> to take caution and care with them
[18:36] <hggdh> I think there is merit to both sides
[18:36] <ikonia> the time lag to have a discussion between the members can cause delay, thats frustrating, but I don't see how that can be improved.
[18:36] <ikonia> thats not peoples fault they are in different time zone, or have to work, or look after a child
[18:36] <knome> disclaimer: i'm not trying to cause drama and confrontation here...
[18:36] <cprofitt> I agree that, at times, delay causes issues... just like quick action can
[18:37] <hggdh> I cannot speak about previous IRCCs, but I can state that the current one had some quite difficult decisions to make -- and they did get made
[18:37] <cprofitt> I do have faith that everyone on the IRCC is trying to do their best... quick action or delayed action
[18:37] <knome> hggdh, i appreciate that
[18:37] <AlanBell> shall we move on?
[18:37] <cprofitt> with complex issues there is often a need to gather facts as well... which takes time
[18:38] <knome> would it be fair to ask the IRCC to publicly response to any issue raised within some specified time, like a week?
[18:38] <knome> and follow up weekly or beweekly about the status
[18:38] <not_rww> Even if the public response is "we are looking into this"
[18:38] <knome> *bi-weekly
[18:38] <ikonia> knome: that sadly doesn't work
[18:38] <AlanBell> hmm, if it is a defined item somewhere
[18:38] <knome> ikonia, because?
[18:38] <AlanBell> !appeals
[18:38] <AlanBell> ^ email it there and create a ticket \o/
[18:38] <ikonia> knome: they tried this with an issue for me - but the delay was down to people not talking to each other, so when I got an update they had not spoken to each other and the update was wrong
[18:39] <knome> ikonia, ok.. so what you are saying is that "it hasn't worked in the past"
[18:39] <cprofitt> knome: it would be fair to expect a response... as in 'we are looking at this' ... but not a decision
[18:39] <knome> cprofitt, i'm not asking for a decision
[18:39] <ikonia> knome: totally, yes, thats the correct wording
[18:39] <ikonia> knome: if there is a delay doing $something it normally seems to be because people are away, in which case the update is either "nothing done yet" or "wrong" becauyse the guy giving the update is out of the loop
[18:39] <ikonia> they have tried that
[18:39] <knome> AlanBell, so should all issues raised to the IRCC go through the appeals email then?
[18:40] <hggdh> cprofitt: that is not enough, I think. "We are working on it" is nice as a boilerplate, but updates are also necessary, with more details
[18:40] <knome> if the IRCC give weekly notices and all of them are "nothing is done", maybe the team can question if the IRCC is fit in that situation
[18:40] <AlanBell> knome: nope, just talk to us
[18:40] <AlanBell> but if you want SLAs on it, then use the tracker
[18:40] <not_rww> is IRCC/IrcTeam subject to Team Reporting? i forget
[18:40] <knome> AlanBell, then how do i get weekly notices how things are going, since it's not a specified item?
[18:40] <knome> SLA?
[18:40] <cprofitt> hggdh: I agree it is nice to have more,... but I am not sure a one week period of time is enough to expect more
[18:40] <AlanBell> service level agreement
[18:40] <knome> not_rww, all teams should be
[18:41] <knome> well, i just think the IRCC should give periodic reports on *all* issues they are working on.
[18:41] <ikonia> keep in mind these people are giving up their time
[18:41] <AlanBell> not_rww: we did that for a while, can do it again, I have no idea who reads them, nothing happened when we stopped doing them
[18:41] <knome> if that's not happening, the rest of the team can't know if there is any progress
[18:41] <Tm_T> knome: periodic report like, uh, these meetings?
[18:41] <not_rww> then I'd suggest perhaps weekly/every two week interim team reports that get rolled into the monthly one
[18:41] <MooDoo> I think a simple. hello $person, thanks for your $communication, we'll get back to you shortly, please bear with us is enought right?
[18:41] <ikonia> knome: could it be put o the individual to chase up with the council /
[18:41] <ikonia> eg: I raise the issue, I chase it up with them
[18:41] <not_rww> and actually doing the monthly one ;)
[18:41] <knome> not_rww, AlanBell: the team reporting sucks pretty much for all teams atm, but all teams are "subject" to it
[18:42] <not_rww> and private issues that aren't suitable for there can be status-checked over the ticket thing
[18:42] <knome> Tm_T, for example, but a report every month tends to just delay and delay
[18:42] <AlanBell> so what is an "issue" that we are working on?
[18:42] <Tm_T> knome: I know, I remember when we had monthly reports
[18:42] <Tm_T> adding more bureaucracy doesn't sound a good way to go though
[18:43] <ikonia> AlanBell: if you skip forward to the councils function, this query may go away
[18:43] <knome> AlanBell, anything that an operator has raised and that needs IRCC intervention or decision that isn't acted on.
[18:43] <knome> i'm not proposing to add bureaucracy...
[18:43] <knome> i'm proposing to add communication to both direction
[18:44] <Tm_T> knome: communication can be done in many ways
[18:44] <knome> if an operator raises an issue for the IRCC, it would be nice to get reports back
[18:44] <Tm_T> yes I totally agree with that
[18:44] <knome> if it's an informal mail to the mailing list, cool
[18:44] <knome> that would be completely okay
[18:44] <knome> again, EVEN IF the report was "we're still working on this"
[18:45] <hggdh> indeed. And I think this is doable, and should be done
[18:45] <jussi> depends on the issue no, arent the issues raised with the ircc meant to be private/confidential ?
[18:45] <knome> but if that reporting happens once a month in a team meeting, you only need to postpone it twice and by that time, quarter of a year has passed
[18:45] <not_rww> jussi: and those would go over the ticketing system instead
[18:45] <knome> jussi, obviously, if it's a private issue, report to concerned parties only
[18:45] <AlanBell> most issues we just deal with them
[18:45] <Tm_T> not_rww: all issues could go to ticketing if it requires followup
[18:46] <hggdh> (an email to the ML, I mean. And, of course, private/confidential issues would have to be sanitised.)
[18:46] <AlanBell> like someone asks for a cloak, someone needs to get access to a channel etc
[18:46] <knome> AlanBell, that's good, in that case you obviously do not need to report
[18:46] <knome> AlanBell, because the issue has been taken care of
[18:46] <knome> i'm talking about open issues
[18:46] <AlanBell> and some are not operator specific, like we need to clean up expired cloaks
[18:46] <AlanBell> and those go on the meeting agenda
[18:47] <Tm_T> I really recommend people to use the ticketing system more actively if there is something they really see important and isn't for irc team meeting or something that can be done in #ubuntu-irc
[18:47] <AlanBell> anyhow, I think we need to move along . . so
[18:47] <knome> i'm all in for that...
[18:47] <AlanBell> #topic Paste and attack prevention in the main channels
[18:47] <knome> but i would think the tickets should be public for the team to view at all times
[18:47] <knome> not only if you know the ticket number
[18:48] <AlanBell> so we had the floodbots for many years, and now they are gone
[18:48] <knome> AlanBell, so no promise?
[18:48] <knome> AlanBell, no response?
[18:48] <tsimpson> knome: you can use LP for that
[18:48] <knome> AlanBell, no action item?
[18:48] <knome> tsimpson, that works for me, if the IRCC doesn't think that's too much bureucracy
[18:48] <AlanBell> knome: I will follow up with something
[18:48] <knome> thanks.
[18:48] <Tm_T> knome: I promise to focus on communicating better, happy? (:
[18:49] <knome> #action AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community
[18:49] <meetingology> ACTION: AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community
[18:49] <tsimpson> knome: it already exists https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-irc-council
[18:49] <IdleOne> regarding expired cloaks. I think after two weeks that a member has expired and has not requested to be added back on the team, the cloaks should be automatically removed. Membership is for life anyway (rare cases do happen), the ex-member can always request a cloak again later.
[18:49] <knome> #action Tm_T to focus on communication
[18:49] <meetingology> ACTION: Tm_T to focus on communication
[18:49] <AlanBell> we have launchpad bugs, the ticket tracker, the mailing list, the meeting logs and you can *talk to us*
[18:49] <AlanBell> IdleOne: yeah, we just have to do it, time consuming stuff
[18:49] <knome> tsimpson, yes, i'm okay with that, as long as it's okay for the IRCC, and there is actually responses.
[18:49] <knome> but cheers, i'm happy with this.
[18:49] <AlanBell> so, attack prevention
[18:49] <tsimpson> well reporting on the LP bugs is part of the regular meeting agenda
[18:50] <AlanBell> we had the floodbots, jolly convenient they were too, but they are gone. We said we would put together some kind of tool for preventing accidental pastes, which we did
[18:50] <AlanBell> we put a supybot instance together, running a modified AttackProtector plugin
[18:51] <AlanBell> code is https://github.com/AlanBell/Supybot-plugins
[18:51] <IdleOne> source is ?
[18:51] <IdleOne> there it is
[18:51] <Tm_T> AlanBell: are they verbose of their doings in some monitoring channel?
[18:51] <AlanBell> the modification is to allow auto reversal of mode changes
[18:51] <AlanBell> Tm_T: nope
[18:51] <Tm_T> allright
[18:51] <not_rww> I think it using NOTICE is already on your todo list, right?
[18:52] <not_rww> b/c I don't care, but some people presumably do (and AntiSpamMeta does, amusingly)
[18:52] <AlanBell> this bot was sat in the #unopaste channel for some time for a bit of testing
[18:52] <AlanBell> not_rww: it is using notice
[18:52] <IdleOne> AlanBell: it shouldn't be
[18:52] <not_rww> AlanBell: right, i think people were saying it /shouldn't/ be noticing channels?
[18:52] <IdleOne> was the point :)
[18:52]  * AlanBell thinks it was rww that asked for it to be a notice
[18:52] <not_rww> I didn't ask for it to be a notice...
[18:52] <AlanBell> but sure, it can not be a notice
[18:52] <AlanBell> someone did, I wouldn't just make that up ;)
[18:53] <not_rww> I don't care what it is, but some/most people have crap IRC clients that care a lot about channel notices
[18:53] <IdleOne> AlanBell: only because some clients send notices to server tab. New users might not know to look there.
[18:53] <tsimpson> I really don't think it should notice the channel
[18:53] <AlanBell> ok, I will change that later
[18:53] <tsimpson> it should either notice the user, or /msg the user, or just use a normal channel message
[18:53] <Tm_T> I agree no notice
[18:53] <Tm_T> in channel that is
[18:53] <not_rww> what tsimpson said. in decreasing preference order for me
[18:54] <AlanBell> oh, maybe you said to notice the user
[18:54] <IdleOne> channel message is best because that is where the user is looking when the are pasting mulitple lines
[18:54] <not_rww> AlanBell: that sounds more like something I'd say
[18:54] <AlanBell> what does that even do?
[18:54] <Tm_T> not_rww: you mean rww would say?
[18:54] <phunyguy> noticing the user is like a PM, but they see it everywhere... right?
[18:55] <AlanBell> go on, notice me :)
[18:55] <IdleOne> phunyguy: not in all clients
[18:55] <phunyguy> oh.
[18:55] <not_rww> depends on the client
[18:55] <not_rww> what it does is send an RFC-compliant message to the user
[18:55] <phunyguy> mine has settings to put it where you want.
[18:55] <not_rww> some clients choose to display that in stupid ways, some don't
[18:55]  * AlanBell sees nothing, anyone noticed me?
[18:55] <hggdh> /invite #ubuntu-br-ops
[18:56] <tsimpson> AlanBell: you have a notice
[18:56] <knome> AlanBell, i just did.
[18:56] <AlanBell> hmm
[18:56] <IdleOne> phunyguy: You are an experienced IRC user though. The best solution is the one that covers all the bases. A channel message would be it
[18:56] <AlanBell> less than totally effective
[18:56] <phunyguy> yep.  I agree there
[18:56] <AlanBell> oh, there they are in a status window, not hilighting me
[18:56] <IdleOne> see
[18:57] <AlanBell> I would never notice those notices
[18:57] <tsimpson> the only problem with a normal channel message is that it can (theoretically) be exploited to ironically flood the channel, adding to the noise
[18:57] <IdleOne> first time irc user in #ubuntu gets a notice, doesn't see it and is now upset about getting Can't send to channel messages from the server
[18:57]  * Tm_T notices AlanBell not noticing notice
[18:57] <tsimpson> but it's not something I see as likely
[18:57] <not_rww> so use PM?
[18:57] <IdleOne> not_rww: same problem
[18:57] <knome> time limit the notice to one per 30 secs.
[18:57] <IdleOne> new users might not see the new tab
[18:57] <AlanBell> PM is less of a problem
[18:58] <knome> or one per 1 minute.
[18:58] <phunyguy> I am horrible at noticing PMs and I am an experienced user.
[18:58] <MooDoo> AlanBell: but more intrusive?
[18:58] <not_rww> presumably you'd have more chance to notice when you see you can't talk :P
[18:58] <phunyguy> ask IdleOne, chu, and everyone else that PMs me
[18:58] <AlanBell> anyhow we don't like the notice to the channel so I can change that
[18:58] <knome> how commonly are there several floodpastes in 1 minute?
[18:58] <knome> (from different users?)
[18:58] <AlanBell> in principal though we can get it to do different things, message the monitor channel and other stuff
[18:59] <IdleOne> A channel message is most effective because that is where the users attention is at the time they would get a message about pasting to the channel
[18:59] <knome> or even in 5 minutes
[18:59] <AlanBell> knome: really rare
[18:59] <knome> see.
[18:59] <phunyguy> not_rww: I thought when you are +q, it still sends to the channel on your end? Or is that only if +z is set?
[18:59] <knome> just time limit the notice message to N minutes
[18:59] <not_rww> phunyguy: only if +z is set, you get a server error if it's not
[18:59] <phunyguy> so some may not realize...
[18:59] <phunyguy> oh ok.
[18:59] <phunyguy> well +z can be set at any point in time.
[18:59] <phunyguy> (or unset)
[18:59] <not_rww> anyways, apart from that bikeshedding, I think the bot is working fine as a starting point, and we can do more complicated stuff iff need be
[18:59] <AlanBell> I made the bot some time ago (17 days ago) but the general opinion was to not send it in to the channel and see how we got on without it
[19:00] <AlanBell> couple of days ago there was a bit of a complaint about the lack of floodbots so I sent it in and it has prevented a couple of problems
[19:00] <not_rww> i'll be back in 5 minutes
[19:00] <knome> AlanBell, is the code available and can you link to it
[19:00] <AlanBell> knome: of course, and I did :)
[19:00] <AlanBell> https://github.com/AlanBell/Supybot-plugins
[19:01] <AlanBell> pull requests welcome
[19:01] <knome> just missed that. thanks.
[19:01] <AlanBell> so I think unopaste is staying, I am not hearing howls of anquish
[19:01] <AlanBell> it isn't another eir ;)
[19:02] <knome> AlanBell, AttackProtector is the right subdir, right?
[19:02] <AlanBell> knome: yeah
[19:02] <knome> cheers.
[19:02] <AlanBell> oh, I need to push up the /notice bit
[19:02] <AlanBell> that just isn't something to push upstream
[19:03] <AlanBell> so, a few items to improve on that, but there we are for now
[19:03] <knome> AlanBell, i've asked lderan to look at the code and come up with a time-limiter
[19:03] <tsimpson> it could go upstream, if it was a configuration option
[19:04] <Tm_T> good starting point and possibility to improve is all we need now
[19:04] <knome> can ask him to look at that as well, if you want
[19:04] <AlanBell> tsimpson: yeah, I just hard coded the text for now, if done properly then it might be worth contributing
[19:04] <knome> AlanBell, asked for the conf option as well.
[19:05] <knome> AlanBell, lderan will most probably be in touch with you.
[19:05] <AlanBell> knome: sure, lderan can have all access required, no problem
[19:05] <knome> AlanBell, yeah, i'm just *reporting back* on progress ;)
[19:06] <knome> and noticing that somebody is actually looking at it.
[19:06]  * rww reappears
[19:06] <lderan> hello there
[19:06] <AlanBell> we are not committed to this path, if there is a different anti-paste solution that anyone preferes, then we can totally switch
[19:06] <AlanBell> hi lderan
[19:06] <AlanBell> anyhow, lets trot along to the factoid review \o/
[19:06] <AlanBell> #topic Factoid Review
[19:06] <rww> thank you for taking lead on pastebot by the way AlanBell. was good work :)
[19:07] <AlanBell> so we have a bunch of factoids and one of the issues raised in the open letter and then again in assorted bits of drama, was the over-use or inappropriate use of factoids by the team and users
[19:07] <knome> http://pad.ubuntu.com/factoids
[19:07] <AlanBell> so we thought we would have a look at what factoids might be in scope for that, and put the list on the pad that knome linked to :)
[19:08] <AlanBell> so, lets go through them now, everyone should have access to the pad where comments have been left
[19:08] <DJones> Evening
[19:09] <MooDoo> hi DJones
[19:09] <AlanBell> so, from the top :)
[19:09] <AlanBell> !language
[19:09] <knome> that has -5 +2 (for new merging with !english)
[19:09] <AlanBell> we had a number of people not liking this factoid and an alternative proposal
[19:10] <AlanBell> The main Ubuntu channels require that you speak in calm, polite English. For other languages, please visit https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ChannelList
[19:10] <AlanBell> !english
[19:10] <knome> AlanBell, since the factoids are in the pad, do we need to copy/paste?
[19:10] <AlanBell> so the proposal was to make both of them different
[19:10] <Tm_T> AlanBell: I would prefer to see them merged
[19:11] <AlanBell> knome: I am going to call them one by one, doesn't matter if we have extra text here, just makes the minutes look clearer
[19:11] <AlanBell> ok, so we like the new text for both english and language?
[19:11] <Tm_T> I'm ok with it
[19:12] <AlanBell> !no language is <reply> The main Ubuntu channels require that you speak in calm, polite English. For other languages, please visit https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ChannelList
[19:12] <AlanBell> !english is alias language
[19:12] <AlanBell> !forget english
[19:12] <AlanBell> !english is alias language
[19:12] <AlanBell> bah
[19:13] <DJones> The only issue I can see with that will be disagreements on what constitutes "the main ubuntu channels"
[19:13] <AlanBell> someone know how to do it?
[19:13] <tsimpson> unforget it, then use <alias>
[19:13] <knome> !unforget english
[19:13] <knome> !no, english is <alias> language
[19:13] <AlanBell> ah, angle brackets
[19:13] <AlanBell> !english
[19:13] <AlanBell> hah
[19:13]  * tsimpson mumbles something about the documentation
[19:13] <AlanBell> yeah, I read it once
[19:13] <knome> tsimpson, documentation, BOOORIING and TL;DR ;)
[19:13] <AlanBell> in one eye, out the other
[19:14] <AlanBell> !ohmy
[19:14]  * phunyguy is running out of time :(
[19:14] <knome> could actually made a alias of language now.
[19:14] <AlanBell> so, for this one several people didn't like it at all
[19:15] <phunyguy> yeah, these types of factoids should be more humanly conveyed.  As in, not a bot trigger
[19:15] <AlanBell> !no ohmy is <alias> language
[19:15] <AlanBell> phunyguy: so we can forget things altogether, that is fine
[19:15] <AlanBell> but there was a proposal to reword it that had some support
[19:15] <phunyguy> ahh I haven't checked recently.
[19:16] <AlanBell> !enter
[19:16] <AlanBell> several forgets on this one
[19:16] <AlanBell> !forget enter
[19:16] <AlanBell> !repeat
[19:16] <AlanBell> lots of people liked this one
[19:16] <AlanBell> !anyone
[19:16] <rww> kill with fire
[19:16] <AlanBell> !forget anyone
[19:16] <phunyguy> ^ yes
[19:17] <AlanBell> !behavior
[19:17] <rww> people were abusing the hell out of that factoid :<
[19:17] <rww> i like !behavior
[19:17] <AlanBell> seems fine to me
[19:17] <AlanBell> !etiquette
[19:17] <AlanBell> for people who can spell etiquette
[19:17] <jussi> I dont like behaviour. it feels very bossy
[19:17] <rww> !behaviour =~ s/,/;/
[19:18] <knome> jussi, and a bit too direct, "Answers are not always available."
[19:18] <rww> jussi: it's usually a response in kind to people getting complainy about not getting answered
[19:18] <jussi> knome: yes "short"
[19:18] <tsimpson> too !many !see !also !keywords
[19:18] <rww> could be reworded tho, but the intent needs to stay
[19:18] <knome> why not merge with guidelines, +3 for that.
[19:18] <knome> !guidelines
[19:18] <jussi> yep
[19:18] <AlanBell> knome: merge which one with guidelines?
[19:19] <jussi> ettiquette
[19:19] <knome> actually both
[19:19] <jussi> which I cant spell
[19:19] <knome> both have +3 for merging
[19:19] <AlanBell> !no etiquette is <alias> guidelines
[19:19] <AlanBell> !no behavior is <alias> guidelines
[19:19] <knome> reword behavior or merge it
[19:19] <rww> AlanBell: behaviour, not behavior
[19:20] <AlanBell> !no behaviour is <alias> guidelines
[19:20] <AlanBell> spelling, I fail
[19:20] <AlanBell> !best
[19:20] <knome> !behavior
[19:20] <knome> forget !best
[19:20] <jussi> I like best.
[19:20] <rww> i dislike best
[19:21] <rww> also, I just remembered that !patience covers what I wanted !behavior to cover, so yay
[19:21] <tsimpson> let's have a poll!
[19:21] <jussi> haha
[19:21] <knome> no,
[19:21] <AlanBell> what is the best factoid?
[19:21] <knome> there was a poll already
[19:21] <rww> i vote for !best is <alias> worst-#ubuntu-offtopic
[19:21] <knome> and if you must take polls, take them in #ubuntu-polls :P
[19:21] <jussi> knome: serious face off for a min :P
[19:21] <AlanBell> !worst-#ubuntu-offtopic
[19:21] <AlanBell> yeah, that is pretty bad
[19:22] <jussi> just needs an update that one
[19:22] <rww> not as bad as !ettiquette
[19:22] <IdleOne> no, it's the worst
[19:22] <jussi> I think we just change roserling and IdleOne and its all good
[19:22] <knome> i think we must stop joking
[19:22] <knome> we're discussing !best
[19:23] <AlanBell> I don't think we need a best factoid, if someone asks what the best virtualisation system is or whatever then people can ask them what their requirements are
[19:23] <jussi> yeah, back to it
[19:23] <knome> (i don't want to sit in IRC the whole evening talking about IRC)
[19:23] <knome> !forget best
[19:23] <AlanBell> yay
[19:23] <AlanBell> !who
[19:23] <knome> has +4
[19:23] <AlanBell> that looks kinda handy
[19:23] <knome> keep and move along
[19:23] <knome> !away
[19:23] <AlanBell> !away
[19:24] <knome> -4 +1
[19:24] <knome> probably better to notice personally about that.
[19:24] <rww> "a simple PM to the user can help this", yes, !away > user
[19:24] <AlanBell> good point, works well with >
[19:24] <rww> it's not like it's something that really needs discussion, and people who get hit with it generally have heard about how awaynicks suck from elsewhere
[19:25] <AlanBell> ok, keeping for now
[19:25] <AlanBell> !pm
[19:25] <knome> can we keep !away, but edit !away-#ubuntu to give no response?
[19:25] <phunyguy> yeah I just still hold firm that factoids like this should be more human and not a bot trigger, even if it is an !away > user
[19:25] <AlanBell> knome: sure, go ahead
[19:25] <phunyguy> just my opinion
[19:25] <rww> "no response" don't think so
[19:25] <knome> AlanBell, i mean, is that technically possible... and what do i set !away-#channel to?
[19:25] <knome> !pm has -1 +4
[19:25] <knome> ubottu, quiet!
[19:26] <AlanBell> didn't I do that for !ops-#ubuntu-ops
[19:26] <AlanBell> oh, not quite, no
[19:26]  * knome shrugs
[19:26] <knome> i can file a LP bug ;P
[19:26] <AlanBell> knome: ok, sounds like a good idea, if we can do it, lets move on :)
[19:26] <knome> yep.
[19:27] <AlanBell> so for pm, people don't like the last sentence
[19:27] <phunyguy> I have to go to another meeting.  Farewell all for now.
[19:27] <AlanBell> I don't think it needs to be there in that context
[19:27] <AlanBell> !no pm is <reply> Please ask your questions in the channel so that other people can help you, benefit from your questions and answers, and ensure that you're not getting bad advice.
[19:28] <AlanBell> !details
[19:28] <AlanBell> !work
[19:28] <rww> . !work is funny and pisses users off, !details is fine but a bit overused
[19:28] <AlanBell> I like details, not sure why you would want to merge it with work
[19:29] <AlanBell> so lets move on from details for now
[19:29] <AlanBell> !shout
[19:29] <knome> !forget shout
[19:29] <knome> thanks!
[19:29] <rww> \o/
[19:30] <AlanBell> OK, WHAT IS NEXT?
[19:30] <rww> oh
[19:30] <rww> so
[19:30] <rww> you guys have a bunch of dangling aliases now
[19:30] <rww> !caps
[19:30] <knome> AlanBell, I CAN'T HEAR YOU
[19:30] <rww> i call not it on fixing those
[19:30] <knome> rww, aww for not being able to do that...
[19:30] <knome> rww, i mean, understanding that
[19:30] <AlanBell> rww: ok, fine, we can go through those later
[19:30] <rww> can just remove as we find, i guess
[19:30] <rww> !forget caps
[19:31] <knome> !forget scrolling
[19:31] <AlanBell> well I can go through what we forget in this meeting and fix them
[19:31] <knome> !forget return
[19:31] <knome> !forget anybody
[19:31] <rww> next up, !o4o
[19:31] <AlanBell> !o4o
[19:31] <knome> !forget somebody
[19:31] <rww> strong keep on !o4o
[19:31] <knome> !forget !someone
[19:31] <knome> !forget someone
[19:31] <knome> !forget expert
[19:32] <AlanBell> o4o seems worth keeping to me
[19:32] <AlanBell> !stop
[19:32] <rww> and it's one of those factoids that has had iterations to remove bugs and is brushing up against the size limit, and I don't think it needs editing again
[19:32] <knome> !forget good
[19:32] <knome> !forget better
[19:32] <rww> i'm on the fence about !stop
[19:32] <knome> !forget preference
[19:32] <knome> !forget ppolls
[19:32] <rww> knome: (/msg ubottu plz)
[19:32] <AlanBell> stop wasn't on the list, do we like it
[19:32] <knome> rww, i thought for logs/history
[19:33] <knome> but okay.
[19:33] <knome> then i can't follow the discussion!
[19:33] <rww> then do it later :P
[19:33] <AlanBell> knome: lets bash the aliases at the end of the meeting
[19:33] <knome> doing it now in PM
[19:33] <AlanBell> so, !stop, do we like that?
[19:33] <rww> iirc !stop's intended for operator use, not user use
[19:34] <tsimpson> in which case, it's dumb
[19:34] <rww> mainly been used in -ot that i've seen
[19:34] <tsimpson> in which case, it's more dumb
[19:34] <rww> agreed
[19:34] <AlanBell> doesn't make sense there
[19:34] <rww> discussions don't usually get to a point in #ubuntu where it'd be necessary to be so harsh
[19:35] <AlanBell> and you could just mute people, or set +m if it was that bad
[19:35] <tsimpson> and then 'forget' to unset it
[19:35] <AlanBell> !forget stop
[19:35] <rww> in -ot, I'm more of a fan of using !o4o's "stop when asked" clause and asking for stop, in a different tone from !stop
[19:36] <AlanBell> !netsplit
[19:36] <jussi> thats a good one
[19:36] <AlanBell> !lol
[19:36] <AlanBell> !forget lol
[19:36] <knome> !inappropriate
[19:36] <AlanBell> !nickspam lol
[19:36] <rww> !netsplit =~ s/^/<reply> A netsplit is /
[19:36] <knome> ^
[19:37] <AlanBell> !nickspam
[19:37] <rww> -1 on !inappropriate existing
[19:37] <knome> !forget inappropriate
[19:37] <jussi> good
[19:37] <rww> i have the same opinion of !nickspam as of !away
[19:37] <AlanBell> nickspam seems popular in the pad
[19:37] <knome> yes,
[19:37] <knome> same as away
[19:37] <AlanBell> keep, but stop it working in-channel if we can
[19:37] <knome> make it PM-only.
[19:38] <AlanBell> !u
[19:38] <jussi> I dont like that one. feels short and grumpy.
[19:38] <knome> !forget lolops
[19:38] <knome> !forget lolcats
[19:38] <tsimpson> you could just get rid of the first two sentences of !u
[19:39] <rww> . !no, u is <reply> Shortened English is difficult for some non-native English speakers to read. Please use full words instead. Thanks!
[19:39] <knome> or merge with !language.
[19:39] <AlanBell> much better
[19:39] <tsimpson> like that, yep
[19:39] <knome> !language
[19:39] <jussi> rww: ++
[19:39] <Pici> hi
[19:39] <rww> !no, u is <reply> Shortened English is difficult for some non-native English speakers to read. Please use full words instead. Thanks!
[19:39] <AlanBell> hi Pici
[19:39] <jussi> heya Pici
[19:39] <knome> isn't mangled english essentially "other language"
[19:39] <rww> knome: no, it r txt liek dis
[19:39] <AlanBell> !piracy
[19:39] <knome> rww, yes... looks like other language to me :)
[19:39] <AlanBell> popular one
[19:39] <AlanBell> !noob
[19:39] <rww> !-piracty
[19:40] <rww> !-piracy
[19:40] <rww> !-cracking
[19:40] <knome> !forget noob
[19:40] <rww> . !piracy doesn't cover cracking. Should it?
[19:41] <rww> also, !noob was +2/-2, not really a forget-without-discussion
[19:41] <AlanBell> rww: possibly, however penetration testing, wireshark and wifi stuff that is in the repos is entirely supportable
[19:41] <rww> then !forget cracking
[19:41] <AlanBell> yeah
[19:41] <knome> rww, can reintroduce if people feel strongly.
[19:41] <jussi> noob should go from my point of view, tipping it to +2/-3
[19:42] <Pici> We historically do not support the actual use of things like aircrack-ng even if they claim they are using it for legal purposes
[19:42] <rww> on second thought, all the *f* acronyms in !noob are covered by !language
[19:42] <knome> i've already !forgot all the aliases for !noob
[19:42] <knome> (but i can reintroduce)
[19:42] <knome> but i think it's just misuse of the factoid system
[19:42] <AlanBell> I think the policy remains, stfu and so on are not acceptable, we just don't need a bot factoid to say so
[19:42] <knome> exactly
[19:42] <jussi> exactly
[19:42] <knome> basically,
[19:42] <rww> alrighty, i'll go with that
[19:42] <knome> all factoids that are "op use only" should go.
[19:43] <knome> well
[19:43] <knome> don't take that black and white :)
[19:43] <rww> . !noob wasn't op-use-only, but I agree
[19:43] <rww> !google
[19:43] <Pici> There are op-only factoids?
[19:43] <knome> but there are usually better ways to handle
[19:43] <knome> Pici, !stop was mentioned as one
[19:43] <knome> Pici, and not *technically* ops-only
[19:43] <knome> which is why they also should be dropped...
[19:44] <jussi> I think a lot of the factoids that tell/order users what they must or must not do are not that useful/somewhat rude
[19:44] <knome> !piracy ?
[19:44] <AlanBell> so !google had some support
[19:44] <AlanBell> !work
[19:44] <knome> what happened to !piracy
[19:44] <knome> did we decide something?
[19:44] <AlanBell> !piracy
[19:44] <knome> keep?
[19:44] <Pici> yes
[19:44] <knome> (i guess)
[19:44] <knome> ok
[19:44] <AlanBell> keeping it
[19:44] <AlanBell> but !work is less popular
[19:44] <knome> i'm actually thinking -1 !google
[19:45] <AlanBell> !details
[19:45] <rww> Pici: re: aircrack and such, I'd appreciate some pondering from IRCC about that and perhaps clarification on if it is or isn't supportable, since different ops seem to disagree in the past about it
[19:45] <AlanBell> so !work and !details are similar
[19:45] <knome> it sounds like something an op or and experienced user would throw at a not-so-experienced helper
[19:45] <rww> i dislike work
[19:45]  * phunyguy is back
[19:45] <AlanBell> rww: that has previously been discussed, I will look it up, the CC was involved I think
[19:45] <jussi> theres another one I dont remember that says something similar but better
[19:46] <AlanBell> !no work is <alias> details
[19:46] <knome> !details | jussi
[19:46] <jussi> no
[19:46] <rww> !-work
[19:46] <rww> !-doesn't work
[19:46] <jussi> it starts with e and is a long word
[19:46] <Pici> I like work
[19:46] <AlanBell> !no doesn't work is <alias> details
[19:46] <rww> !elaborate
[19:46] <AlanBell> !work
[19:46] <jussi> rww: yup
[19:46] <knome> yes!
[19:47] <rww> i prefer !elaborate to !work
[19:47] <jussi> yes, as do I
[19:47] <knome> ¡no, details is <alias> elaborate
[19:47] <knome> ^
[19:47] <rww> !-details
[19:47] <rww> knome: +1
[19:47] <jussi> knome: also +1
[19:47] <knome> and work too.
[19:47] <knome> !no, details is <alias> elaborate
[19:47] <knome> !no, work is <alias> elaborate
[19:47] <AlanBell> !work
[19:47] <rww> !work
[19:47] <knome> !no, work is <alias> elaborate
[19:47] <AlanBell> already done, it is a chain of aliases
[19:47] <knome> what?
[19:48] <knome> stupid.
[19:48] <rww> knome: it's fine :P
[19:48] <knome> :)
[19:48] <AlanBell> knome: relax
[19:48] <rww> !elaborate =~ s/,/;/
[19:48] <knome> NEVAR!
[19:48] <AlanBell> !please
[19:48] <AlanBell> !forget please
[19:48] <rww> !repeat
[19:48] <rww> !attitude
[19:48] <jussi> that one gets abused... (repeat)
[19:49] <knome> #action knome to edit !repeat-#xubuntu to be more exact on xubuntu-specific links
[19:49] <meetingology> ACTION: knome to edit !repeat-#xubuntu to be more exact on xubuntu-specific links
[19:49] <AlanBell> it does, someone pastes a question, repeats hours later and someone tells them off for repeating :)
[19:49] <Pici> I'm a little confused as to where the decision to remove some of these is coming from... like !please
[19:49] <AlanBell> Pici: the pad
[19:49] <knome> ¡no, repeat is <alias> elaborate
[19:49] <rww> knome: -1
[19:49] <rww> knome: they're different issues
[19:50] <AlanBell> if there is overwhelming -1s on the pad or +1s then I wassn't discussing in great depth
[19:50] <Pici> -1
[19:50] <knome> mmh, yeah, i acknowledge that..
[19:50] <knome> just an idea
[19:50] <rww> AlanBell: !please was +4...
[19:50] <rww> oh no it wasn't
[19:50]  * rww searches better
[19:50] <AlanBell> rww: no, it wasn't
[19:50] <Pici> sorry, I missed that on the pad
[19:50] <knome> would !forget repeat
[19:50] <rww> yeah, ignore me, I failed at ctrl-f
[19:50] <Pici> no
[19:50] <Pici> repeat is used a lot.
[19:50] <Pici> repeatedly
[19:50] <AlanBell> is that good or bad?
[19:51] <knome> i guess that proves my point. :)
[19:51] <rww> I think it's fine if it's not abused.
[19:51] <Pici> Well, I was making a joke. It is used when it is necessary.
[19:51] <phunyguy> jokes are not allowed here.
[19:51] <knome> hmm,
[19:51] <Pici> Remember that some people prefer to see things that ubottu says as 'official' despite other users telling them the same thing.
[19:51] <knome> drop anything off !repeat except the last sentence?
[19:51] <knome> While you wait...
[19:52] <rww> hrm?
[19:52] <knome> dunno
[19:52] <knome> i'm just throwing ideas.
[19:52] <AlanBell> if we can't decide now, lets move on
[19:52] <AlanBell> !punctuation
[19:52] <Pici> k
[19:53] <knome> forget...
[19:53] <Pici> we got rid of enter :/
[19:53] <knome> proves we should drop punctuation as well :P
[19:53] <Pici> but then I can't do things like
[19:53] <Pici> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!punctuation
[19:53] <rww> +1 Pici
[19:54] <knome> punctuation is requested 141 times
[19:54] <rww> i changed my mind, kill it
[19:54] <knome> approximately 100 of those is Pici playing with the bot
[19:54] <Pici> punctuation can probably go, I just liked !enter
[19:54] <Pici> knome: probably :P
[19:54] <knome> !forget punctuation
[19:54] <jussi> yup
[19:54] <AlanBell> !coc
[19:54] <AlanBell> keep that one
[19:54] <Pici> keep
[19:54] <phunyguy> this is a good one
[19:54] <AlanBell> !canibeanop
[19:54] <rww> !coc =~ s/  / /
[19:55] <Pici> keep
[19:55] <phunyguy> also a good one
[19:55] <Pici> beanop
[19:55] <rww> !canibeanop =~ s/  / /
[19:55] <knome> !meta
[19:55] <tsimpson> may be a good idea to move the blog link to the wiki somewhere
[19:55] <AlanBell> yeah, I will move the content to the wiki
[19:55] <knome> +1 for tsimpson's idea
[19:55] <Pici> aye
[19:55] <rww> #action Alanbell to move !canibeanop link content to wiki
[19:55] <meetingology> ACTION: Alanbell to move !canibeanop link content to wiki
[19:55] <rww> :3
[19:55] <AlanBell> ok, that concludes the factoid review \o/
[19:55] <knome> meta?
[19:55] <phunyguy> phew
[19:56] <rww> no it doesn't there is !meta :P
[19:56] <tsimpson> -meta is dead
[19:56] <rww> !forget meta
[19:56] <knome> !forget meta
[19:56] <AlanBell> knome: coming up next . .
[19:56] <rww> I WIN
[19:56] <knome> boo!
[19:56] <AlanBell> I will send a summary of what has changed to the list later
[19:56] <AlanBell> I will extract it from the minutes
[19:56] <rww> #action AlanBell to send a summary of factoid changes to ubuntu-irc@
[19:56] <meetingology> ACTION: AlanBell to send a summary of factoid changes to ubuntu-irc@
[19:56] <AlanBell> #topic Metabot and Bestbot - clean up, or re-implement
[19:56] <knome> hmm, please
[19:56] <knome> one more
[19:56] <knome> !ask
[19:57] <phunyguy> that one is beat to hell also
[19:57] <rww> alias to !elaborate
[19:57] <Pici> I'd like to shorten that one up
[19:57] <knome> rww, not quite the same issue... :)=
[19:57] <rww> . !elaborate is my new favorite thing
[19:57] <Pici> It used to be just "Don't ask to ask, just ask"
[19:57] <knome> sounds alike to "someone"
[19:57] <rww> brb on alt
[19:57] <knome> just different wording
[19:58] <knome> and !someone was dropped
[19:58] <MooDoo> sorry guys brb little one playing up
[19:58] <tsimpson> I don't see the relevance to !patience either
[19:58] <knome> !no, patience is <alias> repeat
[19:58] <AlanBell> I think !ask is OK
[19:58] <jussi> I say we keep ask in some form - Ive seen many channels using similar wording and its quite a well known/said thing. maybe a link to how to ask wiki is good
[19:58] <knome> (it *was* the same factoid)
[19:58] <phunyguy> While this factoid is probably OK, it just gets used a lot
[19:59] <phunyguy> more than it should.
[19:59] <AlanBell> people are hesitant to ask sometimes
[19:59] <knome> does throwing a factoid help their thresold to ask?
[19:59] <phunyguy> example, "anyone here use $someapplication?"
[20:00] <phunyguy> about 4 people slam them with the bot factoid
[20:00] <tsimpson> I'd remove everything in parentheses and the see also
[20:00] <knome> i vote -1 to !ask
[20:00] <phunyguy> same, -1
[20:00] <Pici> I'd keep the words in the parens and remove the second and 3rd sentences
[20:00] <knome> it is essentially the same as !someone
[20:00] <knome> and all the reasons why we decided to drop that applies to !ask
[20:00] <knome> wasn't the goal to reduce bot usage?
[20:00] <knome> if we really miss the factoid, then reintroduce it.
[20:00] <phunyguy> ^

[20:01] <AlanBell> the goal is to have a more human atmosphere
[20:01] <not_rww> o/
[20:01] <Pici> humans :(
[20:01] <knome_webchat> i have lag.
[20:01] <knome> i have lag.
[20:01] <AlanBell> I read about humans in a book once, I am an expert now \o/
[20:01] <tsimpson> !lag
[20:02] <Pici> How long until helpers complain that ubottu isn't working because we removed a bunch of factoids?
[20:02] <knome> tsimpson, was lag between my irc shell and freenode.
[20:02] <phunyguy> Pici: good question... and that question can be answered pretty easily
[20:02] <phunyguy> (their question I mean)
[20:03] <MooDoo> back sorry about that
[20:03] <Pici> phunyguy: yep.  And as always, I always tell them to suggest a factoid if they think it should exist.
[20:03] <knome> so can people express their thoughts on !ask with -1 +1 -+0
[20:03] <phunyguy> yes, I agree
[20:03] <knome> i'm not sure what the general opinion is.
[20:04] <phunyguy> in case it was missed, -1
[20:04] <knome> -1 from me too
[20:04] <knome> i need to go really soon.
[20:05] <knome> anybody +1's !ask?
[20:05] <phunyguy> yeah this has been an exceptionally long, but productive meeting so far.
[20:05] <AlanBell> as always this stuff is reversable, if we get complaints we can undo it
[20:05] <knome> so forget?
[20:05] <AlanBell> I don't have a strong opinion on ask
[20:05] <knome> ok, mind if i forget that and the aliases then?
[20:06] <IdleOne> !ask
[20:06] <knome> ask, help, justask, metaquestion, problem, questions, question
[20:06] <IdleOne> keep
[20:06] <Pici> ask and help are useful.
[20:06] <Pici> +1 on ask
[20:06] <AlanBell> ok, lets keep it, now for this topic item :)
[20:06] <phunyguy> ok, so keep it
[20:06] <knome> ask == help
[20:06] <knome> ok, i'm off
[20:07] <phunyguy>  \o
[20:07] <AlanBell> as well as the floodbots we no longer have the use of metabot and bestbot
[20:07] <AlanBell> we have the option of trying to reimplement the functionality, or cleaning up the channels and wiki pages and factoids
[20:08] <AlanBell> any thoughts?
[20:08] <IdleOne> clean up
[20:08] <phunyguy> +1 to clean up
[20:08] <AlanBell> my view is to clean up
[20:09] <AlanBell> ok, in the absence of any strong support for reimplementing . . .
[20:09] <not_rww> +1 clean up
[20:09] <AlanBell> #action ircc to clean up behind bestbot and metabot
[20:09] <meetingology> ACTION: ircc to clean up behind bestbot and metabot
[20:09] <AlanBell> #topic Review #ubuntu-ops-team and how we as a team use the various communication channels
[20:09] <AlanBell> we touched on this earlier
[20:09] <AlanBell> how the IRCC and team in general should use communication tools available
[20:10] <AlanBell> there has been some suggestion that we should use the -ops-team channel less and use -irc more for topics that are appropriate there
[20:10] <AlanBell> we could close -ops-team if people want it to not exist
[20:11] <phunyguy> well I like -ops-team, but I can live without it.
[20:11] <IdleOne> -ops-team is useful when trying to resolve and ban with a user and I'm not sure what to do
[20:11] <phunyguy> yes, I agree there
[20:11] <Pici> +1
[20:12] <IdleOne> I say we keep the channel, but try and move much of the discussion as possible to -irc
[20:12] <Pici> and a place for other ops to chime in without having to try to talk over the proceedigns in -ops
[20:12] <IdleOne> ^
[20:12] <phunyguy> right, purely for operator issues/assistance that need to be private.
[20:12] <phunyguy> but discussing things related to the IRC team should be in -irc imo
[20:13] <phunyguy> recent events being a good example.
[20:13] <not_rww> +1 all above
[20:13] <AlanBell> ok, I can reflect that in the minutes, a general preference to use -irc more
[20:13] <AlanBell> #topic Operator Applicants
[20:14] <AlanBell> next item is operator applicants, now we were doing this on a per-cycle basis after UDS
[20:14] <AlanBell> then UDS got a bit confusing, but we have just had one, so lets process some queues
[20:14] <AlanBell> http://paste.ubuntu.com/7121828/
[20:14] <IdleOne> I think this should be tabled for now. I would like to discuss letting the channel ops pick and chose their own ops for the channels. IRCC can keep a veto power just in case it is needed.
[20:14] <AlanBell> that is the list of all the channel groups on launchpad and the people who have applied to join
[20:15] <Pici> what are the numbers?
[20:15] <AlanBell> Pici: launchpad karma I think, for no particular reason
[20:15] <Pici> o
[20:15] <IdleOne> channels should be viewed as individual sub-teams to the irc-team.
[20:15] <phunyguy> I picked #ubuntu-ops by accident, that can be removed.
[20:16] <AlanBell> phunyguy: sure, will do
[20:16] <phunyguy> I have not been an op long enough for that
[20:17] <phunyguy> wait, I did apply for #ubuntu... am I missing it in there?
[20:17] <not_rww> you're not in the proposed list for https://launchpad.net/~irc-ubuntu-ops
[20:18] <AlanBell> IdleOne: channels are individual subteams on launchpad, and we do invite people to comment on applicants, I think for now we have to follow the process we have, which isn't completely incompatible with what you are saying
[20:18] <not_rww> also, I'd like to postpone this topic until next meeting because I have input on some applicants that I want to express in private, and didn't realize it was coming up today
[20:18] <not_rww> i am aware that this is my fault for failing at reading
[20:18] <IdleOne> AlanBell: understood. I'll propose for next meeting perhaps.
[20:18] <phunyguy> :(
[20:19] <phunyguy> I am 99.9% sure I applied in #ubuntu.  Oh well.  I will reapply.
[20:19] <AlanBell> ok, so I need to clarify where we are right now :)
[20:19] <AlanBell> the process is that at some point (now) we put out a call for operators, and look at who is already in the queue
[20:20] <AlanBell> at that point we sort out any administrative errors in the queues, like that phunyguy in the wrong one, and that deactivated account
[20:20] <AlanBell> then we have a feedback period
[20:20] <jussi> there is a clause there (iirc) that the ircc can just "approve" people if it wants
[20:20] <IdleOne> AlanBell: I think that the IRCC voting on who should be an op in which channels is a little bit too much micromanaging. Let the channel ops decide who they think is best for their channel. I know many of us have ops over a lot of the same channels, but I think the channel ops are best placed to know who will be a good fit.
[20:21] <AlanBell> !canibeanop
[20:21] <AlanBell> Apply to join the appropriate operator team(s) on Launchpad. For example, if you wish to become an #ubuntu-devel operator, you should apply to join ~irc-ubuntu-devel-ops on Launchpad.
[20:21] <IdleOne> anyway, I'll drop it for now and propose something for a later meeting.
[20:21] <AlanBell> When the Ubuntu IRC Council notices the need to have more operators in a particular channel or channels, they will send an email to the ubuntu-irc mailing list. After this email is sent, there will be a one week period for any last minute applications and/or for applicants to finish updating their wiki pages. During this time Testimonials and concerns can be emailed direct to the Ubuntu IRC Council mailing list, or listed on the ...
[20:22] <AlanBell> ... applicants wiki page.
[20:22] <AlanBell> ^ that is where we are now
[20:22] <AlanBell> so, I am letting people know who is in the queue right now, and going to send a mail to the list opening the one week period
[20:23] <phunyguy> please include me in #ubuntu on that email, I hit the button on LP.
[20:23] <AlanBell> the channel ops are best placed to give feedback
[20:23] <jussi> ahh the clause was about dropping applicants, not approving them
[20:24] <MooDoo> ok sorry all, my little one is playing up, i'm gonna have to bail.
[20:24] <AlanBell> yup, we can remove applicants from the list if they are not appropriate
[20:24] <AlanBell> no problem MooDoo o/
[20:24] <MooDoo> thanks all
[20:25] <IdleOne> I'm out too. Good meeting thanks all.
[20:25] <AlanBell> so, yes, operators in a channel are well placed to give feedback on the applicants, I will try and stress that
[20:25] <IdleOne> oh, one more thing. idoru can go bye bye.
[20:26] <AlanBell> we just don't have a channel operator voting process at the moment, but sure, one could be proposed and thought through
[20:26] <AlanBell> in practice I would be surprised if the IRCC in any way ever "overruled" feedback from a channel operator
[20:27] <AlanBell> though actually, it probably has happened that channel operators didn't give any feedback and were later surprised that someone was appointed
[20:28] <AlanBell> anyhow, that is where we are, and I will be mailing the list accordingly
[20:28] <AlanBell> #topic Membership applications
[20:28] <AlanBell> no membership applications on the agenda, but pretty much anyone who is an op would find it easy to demonstrate a significant and sustained contribution if they applied
[20:29] <AlanBell> #topic Remove idoru from #ubuntu-offtopic and keep it out of there - rww
[20:29] <AlanBell> so, idoru, any support for keeping it? anyone know why it is there?
[20:29] <not_rww> because we used to get spambots in there, probably
[20:29] <not_rww> i very much want it gone
[20:29] <phunyguy> I fear teh spambots will come back and then we will want idoru back
[20:29] <phunyguy> the*
[20:30] <jussi> not_rww: why?
[20:30] <AlanBell> the fun things about decisions on IRC is that nothing is final
[20:30] <tsimpson> what's the problem with it being there anyway?
[20:30] <AlanBell> so is it randomly klining people?
[20:30] <not_rww> jussi: because it has not killed a spambot in a long while and has killed legitimate users, and freenode is bad at keeping an eye on klines it sets to make sure they're legit
[20:31] <AlanBell> on a technical level, what do we have to do, ask staff to get it to part?
[20:31] <not_rww> please refer to the comments I made when it got removed from #ubuntu, they apply to #ubuntu-offtopic too except more strongly
[20:31] <not_rww> AlanBell: yes
[20:31] <phunyguy> or kickban it
[20:31] <not_rww> phunyguy: it's not affected by bans
[20:32] <phunyguy> o.
[20:32] <AlanBell> ok, anyone actively want to keep it?
[20:33] <jussi> nope
[20:33] <AlanBell> #agreed idoru to be removed from -offtopic
[20:33] <AlanBell> #topic Any Other Business
[20:33] <phunyguy> it can be added back again
[20:33] <AlanBell> it can
[20:33] <not_rww> i have an AOB item
[20:33] <AlanBell> so, anyone else want to discuss anything else
[20:33] <AlanBell> go ahead not_rww
[20:34] <not_rww> I was pondering ways of making #ubuntu less broken recently and thought that perhaps adapting the 5-a-day bug system to support would be interesting. I'm curious if anyone else has thoughts / thinks this is a good idea.
[20:34] <phunyguy> I don't know what that is.
[20:34] <knome> adapting in what way?
[20:34] <not_rww> i.e., trying to cultivate sustained contribution to #ubuntu by encouraging people to answer/participate in 5 support questions a day
[20:35] <AlanBell> interesting
[20:35] <phunyguy> eehhh
[20:35] <not_rww> knome: one component of 5-a-day is tracking success over time, and I'm not sure how one would do that on IRC
[20:35] <AlanBell> bit of gamification
[20:35] <knome> not_rww, yep.
[20:35] <phunyguy> I have a bad feeling abotu it, but I am also new.
[20:35] <not_rww> AlanBell: indeed, which is good or bad depending on your opinion of gamification
[20:35] <knome> i don't think it's a bad thing to come up with new ways to motivate people to help
[20:36] <knome> but what's the "reward", since not_rww said, there's not really an easy way to track it
[20:36] <not_rww> (or is there...)
[20:36] <knome> sounds like either manual work or, ugh, pushing all questions through a bot
[20:36] <phunyguy> I am not saying that coming up with ideas is bad
[20:36] <phunyguy> I was actually talking about the idea.
[20:36] <knome> phunyguy, so what's bad with the ideA?
[20:36] <AlanBell> knome: not neccessarily
[20:36] <jussi> metabot used to identify questions...
[20:36] <not_rww> or just voluntary reporting to a bot when you answer/participate in a question
[20:36] <phunyguy> knome, I don't really know, I just get a weird feeling about it.
[20:37] <not_rww> since it's not like gaming it is going to get you much, and you're limited to getting "points" for five a day
[20:37] <knome> jussi, but not if they were answered/who answered them, and if that was succesful or not
[20:37] <phunyguy> like it won't last.
[20:37] <phunyguy> Stuff like that works on forums, not sure it would work on IRC
[20:37] <not_rww> "if that was successful" i don't think that's possible/useful to track anyway. not all bug reports are successful either, but they still counted
[20:38] <not_rww> anyways, was just one of my random thoughts. but if it's not a good idea, we probably should ponder what /is/, since i have bad feelings about the quality of #ubuntu support right now
[20:38] <knome> i think it would be fair to shout out to people that "you can do 5-a-day with irc support too, though you won't get rewarded points for that"
[20:38] <phunyguy> not_rww: I do agree that support has been a bit terrible there.
[20:38] <AlanBell> it would be possible to have a points system and leaderboard type thing
[20:38] <knome> #xubuntu has lately went into a factoid-bashing mode too
[20:39] <phunyguy> 9 times out of 10, I go in there to ask a question, then spend 3 hours helping others when I get no answer
[20:39] <knome> maybe we should have a "IRC supporter day"
[20:39] <knome> with some sessions on how to be helpful, or something
[20:39] <knome> could also do sessions about bot usage etc.
[20:40] <knome> just award points per lines said per day, and kick unhelpful/offtopic people :P
[20:40] <AlanBell> grep for "thanks knome" or something
[20:40] <knome> hmpf,
[20:40] <not_rww> AlanBell: thankbot!
[20:40] <not_rww> "lines said per day" encourages bad behavior, unfortunately
[20:40] <knome> haven't heard that too much...
[20:40] <not_rww> ( http://www.jonobacon.org/2010/08/24/articulating-irc-contributions-concisely/ )
[20:40] <knome> not_rww, sure... but that's why i said kick unhelpful/offtopic people
[20:41] <not_rww> knome: yep, but I prefer systems that don't encourage such things, much easier than working around such encouragement
[20:41] <AlanBell> not_rww: yeah, thankbot, but more seamless
[20:41] <knome> a thankbot would be manual rewarding
[20:41] <not_rww> ( I've dealt with this problem a lot with public pisg stats tracking in various channels )
[20:41] <knome> doing it automatically is hard
[20:41] <phunyguy> so, this has gone an hour and 41 minutes over schedule already.
[20:42] <phunyguy> just throwing that out there
[20:42] <not_rww> yeah, we should probably table this and ponder it for future
[20:42] <AlanBell> phunyguy: yes, it has, I know
[20:42] <knome> phunyguy, at least things get dicussed
[20:42] <tsimpson> perhaps start a ML discussion
[20:42] <AlanBell> any other AOB?
[20:42] <phunyguy> yes this is true.
[20:42] <jussi> yes
[20:42] <AlanBell> go ahead jussi
[20:42] <jussi> the ircc hasnt actioned my expiring from teams, why not?
[20:43] <AlanBell> not got round to it yet, wasn't on the top of the priority pile :)
[20:43] <AlanBell> and I wasn't sure if you had finished expiring from thigns
[20:43] <knome> jussi, file a bug.
[20:44] <jussi> also, on the incentive thing, perhaps even takng nominations for quarterly "helper of #ubuntu" or somethign?
[20:44] <not_rww> jussi: i note you can remove your own flags in ChanServ
[20:44] <not_rww> not that you should have to, but it's an option
[20:44] <jussi> not_rww: unfortunately when I tried I wouldnt let me. why?
[20:45] <not_rww> jussi: /msg chanserv flags #channelname jussi -*
[20:45] <not_rww> erm, jussi01 **
[20:45] <jussi> [11:38:49] [ChanServ] You are not authorized to execute this command.
[20:45] <not_rww> if you use the correct nick?
[20:45] <jussi> anyway, lets not fill up meeting with this
[20:45] <AlanBell> we have quite a lot of expiries to catch up on, I have a launchpad script that I compare with chanserv lists, it just takes quite a lot of hours to do
[20:46] <AlanBell> any other AOB
[20:46] <AlanBell> #endmeeting
[20:46] <meetingology> Meeting ended Wed Mar 19 20:46:28 2014 UTC.
[20:46] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-03-19-18.03.moin.txt
[20:46] <knome> hm, yes
[20:46] <knome> right, no
[20:46] <knome> ;P
[20:46] <AlanBell> thanks all, that was epic
[20:46] <phunyguy> ^ indeed
[20:46] <AlanBell> next time knome, add it to the agenda
[20:46] <phunyguy> I am exhausted
[20:46] <knome> so i can ask again after one month?
[20:46] <knome> :P
[20:47] <knome> thanks!
[20:47] <knome> that's... responsive ;)
[20:47] <AlanBell> and in future I won't let things overrun, we just had a heap on today and I knew people would be grumpy if I bumped things to next month this time :)
[20:47] <AlanBell> knome: you can add it to the agenda right now
[20:47] <jussi> meh
[20:47] <jussi> overrun is fine if there is important stuff I think
[20:47] <knome> yeah, i can add it to the agenda now, but it will be discussed in one month
[20:47] <knome> if things overrun, run a meeting more often
[20:47] <phunyguy> jussi: yes, it's just tough on folks in the USA that are still at work.
[20:47] <AlanBell> things can be discussed at any time
[20:48] <phunyguy> :)
[20:48] <AlanBell> things get *decided* in meetings
[20:48] <not_rww> jussi: righto, so we're not in a meeting. I'm pretty sure that would work if you did flags #channelname jussi01 -*
[20:48] <not_rww> jussi: because I've done it a bunch of times personally, so...
[20:48] <jussi> not_rww: maybe, Ill give it a go later