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