[02:12] <lotuspsychje> good morning
[18:19] <leftyfb> tomreyn: I'm impressed :)
[18:20] <tomreyn> sometimes i need to shock you
[18:20] <tomreyn> just so you don't loose all hope
[18:21] <leftyfb> JanC: it was a known troll
[18:21] <JanC> even then  :)
[18:21] <JanC> but I understand limited time issues etc.
[18:28] <leftyfb> JanC: lets not have that discussion in #ubuntu
[18:29] <leftyfb> JanC: that troll has the same spiel every time. Their argument isn't valid, it's just troll content. They have zero interest in ubuntu. Only trolling
[18:30] <JanC> they might have zero interest in Ubuntu, but unfortunately the concerns are real
[18:32] <JanC> I'd rather discuss them honestly
[18:32] <Eickmeyer> They're doing it in multiple channels.
[18:33] <JanC> even more reasons to to handle them with facts  :)
[18:33] <leftyfb> JanC: trolls don't care about facts, they just want annoyance
[18:33] <leftyfb> JanC: what is your private concern with ubuntu?
[18:34] <JanC> I mostly care about what other people see...
[18:44] <JanC> tomreyn: it wouldn't have been an issue if Canonical hadn't made several errors about this in the past...
[18:45] <JanC> so I really think a *honest* discussion about this would be very useful for Ubuntu
[18:47] <JanC> you can ban people in #ubuntu if you don't want to discuss this, but not in #linux or #debian or whatever
[18:48] <tomreyn> so... i assume you don't work for Canonical. I don't. Some users or volunteers might post their opinions, and then all this would be gone a day later. What would this discussion serve? Not much, I guess.
[18:48] <leftyfb> JanC: again, that person wasn't banned for their content. They were banned because the content was just part of their trolling. 
[18:50] <JanC> and most people are not aware of that, because you failed to provide more information
[18:52] <leftyfb> JanC: I don't think it's necessary for ops to provide context every time they ban someone. That would get old real quick and certainly hinder their volunteer job
[18:54] <Eickmeyer> JanC: Part of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct is to always assume good intentions, and another part is that Ubuntu is a meritocracy and that leadership has to sometimes make tough decisions. tomreyn made a tough decision, but it was with good intentions, and we never assume ill intentions.
[18:54] <JanC> obviously if they have to provide an extensive explanation that would be a lot of work, but there is no explanation at all, which makes it look like a cover-up...
[18:54] <JanC> that is my concern...
[18:55] <Eickmeyer> JanC: What you're doing right now is against the very part of the Code of Conduct I just outlined.
[18:57] <leftyfb> Eickmeyer: I don't think expressing concerns is outside CoC. JanC has been around a long time and is not known for trolling
[18:57] <JanC> where did I say there wee no good intentions?  you are the only one claiming that...
[18:58] <Eickmeyer> leftyfb: I'm not accusing of trolling, I'm accusing of not respecting the meritocracy or the decision made by a leader.
[18:58] <leftyfb> Eickmeyer: I don't think questioning equates to disrespect
[18:59] <Eickmeyer> leftyfb: And time isn't a thing in a meritocracy, nor is seniority.
[19:01] <JanC> there have been several real privacy issues in the past; a honest discussion of that seems like a good thing to refer to when banning trolls; not for the tolls (they don't care, I'm sure), but for those who are in the channel for other reasons
[19:02] <JanC> it should be a help for chanops really...
[19:03] <Eickmeyer> If someone wants to discuss a ban, they can always bring it to #ubuntu-ops, but discussing a ban here (or #ubuntu) is never appropriate.
[19:04] <JanC> I'm not discussing a ban...
[19:04] <Eickmeyer> Or the reason for the ban.
[19:04] <Eickmeyer> Or the optics *of* the ban.
[19:04] <JanC> I'm sort of discussing the way a ban happens  ;)
[19:05] <JanC> and even then, not a specific ban
[19:05] <Eickmeyer> That's a discussion for #ubuntu-ops. Not here.
[19:05] <Eickmeyer> Even if it's not a specific ban.
[19:06] <JanC> this channel is about anything related to Ubuntu, including optics, I think...
[19:06] <Eickmeyer> It's for *quality* Ubuntu discussions, for which this is not.
[19:07] <Eickmeyer> And topics involving how Ubuntu Ops are operating are never appropriate here.
[19:07] <JanC> except when they hurt Ubuntu as a whole...
[19:07] <Eickmeyer> I don't think you want to go down this road.
[19:08] <Eickmeyer> You are on the line of a CoC violation.
[19:09] <JanC> sure, I have no official power any more in the Ubuntu community
[19:21] <JanC> so what I mean is that it would be better to have _good_ answers to refer people to on such questions, to avoid confusion etc.
[19:22] <JanC> and actually use those
[19:27] <JanC> then you can still ban trolls
[23:34] <Square> Hey. I got a HP desktop system a year ago. Overall decent. Iirc, I did a standard install of Ubuntu 22.04. Today I discovered I was running X11 for some odd reason. When I switched to Wayland I feel as if its not moving as snappy as before UI wise. Just have Intel Corporation RocketLake-S GT1 [UHD Graphics 750].
[23:35] <Square> I have not installed any proprietary drivers for it. Should I?
[23:36] <Square> > vainfo gives
[23:36] <Square> vainfo: VA-API version: 1.14 (libva 2.12.0)
[23:36] <Square> vainfo: Driver version: Intel iHD driver for Intel(R) Gen Graphics - 22.3.1 ()
[23:45] <jeremy31> Square: support is on #ubuntu 
[23:45] <Square> oh ok
[23:47] <gry> thank you :-)