== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting: IRC Operator team meeting, 19 Mar at 18:03 — 20:46 UTC * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-03-19-18.03.log.html]] == Meeting summary == ''LINK:'' http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-01-22-18.01.log.html === Open items in the IRCC tracker === The discussion about "Open items in the IRCC tracker" started at 18:06. === Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council === The discussion about "Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council" started at 18:10. === The IRCC going forward === The discussion about "The IRCC going forward" started at 18:11. === Paste and attack prevention in the main channels === The discussion about "Paste and attack prevention in the main channels" started at 18:47. * ''ACTION:'' AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community * ''ACTION:'' Tm_T to focus on communication * ''LINK:'' https://github.com/AlanBell/Supybot-plugins === Factoid Review === The discussion about "Factoid Review" started at 19:06. * ''LINK:'' http://pad.ubuntu.com/factoids * ''ACTION:'' knome to edit !repeat-#xubuntu to be more exact on xubuntu-specific links * ''ACTION:'' Alanbell to move !canibeanop link content to wiki * ''ACTION:'' AlanBell to send a summary of factoid changes to ubuntu-irc@ === Metabot and Bestbot - clean up, or re-implement === The discussion about "Metabot and Bestbot - clean up, or re-implement" started at 19:56. * ''ACTION:'' ircc to clean up behind bestbot and metabot === Review #ubuntu-ops-team and how we as a team use the various communication channels === The discussion about "Review #ubuntu-ops-team and how we as a team use the various communication channels" started at 20:09. === Operator Applicants === The discussion about "Operator Applicants" started at 20:13. * ''LINK:'' http://paste.ubuntu.com/7121828/ === Membership applications === The discussion about "Membership applications" started at 20:28. === Remove idoru from #ubuntu-offtopic and keep it out of there - rww === The discussion about "Remove idoru from #ubuntu-offtopic and keep it out of there - rww" started at 20:29. === Any Other Business === The discussion about "Any Other Business" started at 20:33. == Vote results == == Action items, by person == * AlanBell * AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community * AlanBell to send a summary of factoid changes to ubuntu-irc@ * knome * knome to edit !repeat-#xubuntu to be more exact on xubuntu-specific links * Tm_T * Tm_T to focus on communication * **UNASSIGNED** * Alanbell to move !canibeanop link content to wiki * ircc to clean up behind bestbot and metabot == Done items == * (none) == People present (lines said) == * AlanBell (307) * knome (254) * ubottu (108) * rww (86) * phunyguy (83) * not_rww (67) * ikonia (42) * jussi (40) * IdleOne (40) * Pici (35) * cprofitt (27) * tsimpson (25) * Tm_T (18) * MooDoo (16) * hggdh (12) * meetingology (9) * DJones (2) * lderan (1) * knome_webchat (1) * elfy (1) == Full Log == 18:03 #startmeeting IRC Operator team meeting 18:03 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 18:03 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 18:03 o/ 18:03 agenda is over here https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda 18:05 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 no specific ation items recoreded but we did quite a bit of assorted stuff since then :/ 18:05 http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-01-22-18.01.log.html 18:06 ah, silly me I was looking in the #meetingology channel not ubuntu-meeting 18:06 ok, so moving on 18:06 #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker 18:07 just checking the tracker . . . 18:07 no open tickets 18:08 what's the tracker URL, and is it publicly accessible 18:08 for those that don't know, the tracker is an osticket instance running here http://ubottu.com/tickets 18:08 tickets get created when people email the appeals address 18:08 ack 18:09 it isn't publicly accessible, but every meeting we declare anything going on in it at a high level 18:09 (here) 18:10 #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council 18:10 we have a bug though 18:10 bug 892501 has been reopened, and we can discuss that in more detail in a later item on the agenda 18:10 bug 892501 in ubuntu-community "Floodbots - need a re-write to be under ubuntu operator team control" [Undecided,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/892501 18:11 but first . . . 18:11 #topic The IRCC going forward 18:11 so, we have a newish IRCC, following the elections in December 18:12 since then there have been rather a lot of stressful interactions and IdleOne has sent an email of resignation to the list 18:13 so we are back down to 4 members, AlanBell Pici Tm_T hggdh 18:13 there have also been other discussions and suggestions about the IRCC, whether it is right for the team and so on 18:14 I would be interested in feedback from others on what we do from here 18:14 o/ 18:15 so would I... 18:15 * phunyguy ponders 18:15 Has the resignation been accepted? 18:15 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 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 MooDoo: yes, it has 18:15 MooDoo: good question 18:16 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 does the IRCC have the teams support and is it trusted to steer the team? 18:16 I have already stated that I am willing to un-resign with the coditions that rww has mentioned. 18:16 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 I see a problem with it personally 18:17 I think this might be something that the current four member, the CC, and myself might want to discuss. 18:17 i don't think you can force anybody to stay a member. 18:18 IdleOne: has resigned without notice or hand over - done, move on 18:18 if it's not accepted, the resigned memeber can just do nothing 18:18 you have 4 members - move on 18:18 yeah, we can't "not accept" the resignation 18:18 and it is effectively the same as "accepting" the resignal 18:18 I don't think it's as simple as that 18:18 it is as simple as that 18:18 I agree that flipflopping resignations is probably not a good idea.... 18:18 whether it can be withdrawn is an open question 18:19 imo if it's been 5 members, then it needs to be 5 members 18:19 we don't neccessarily need to do anything about it 18:19 whether it can be withdrawn is up for the whole teams' approval, not the IRCC only 18:19 MooDoo: why ? why does it need to be 5 members 18:19 why the magic of 5 18:19 we had 4 members for some time, we gave the casting vote to the CC 18:19 knome: why? the whole team didn't get a vote on who got elected 18:19 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 ^ yes the odd number is what needs to be. Not even. 18:20 what phunyguy said :) 18:20 I'm sure 4 people can manage to work out a judgment 18:20 ikonia: I am not really, but it would be a failure not to have this agenda item 18:20 and it can go to the CC if someone feels a real deal breaker is needed 18:20 AlanBell: it's good that it's on the agenda 18:20 "Members of the Ubuntu IRC Members Team are eligible to vote." 18:21 knome: not all those members got to vote afaik 18:21 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 knome: yes, that is the voting group, which isn't quite a lineup with the operator team 18:21 MooDoo: it can be sorted by the power of 4 quite easy 18:21 I would prefer not to have the CC have to get involved just to break a tie 18:21 IdleOne: all that group did, just not all operators are in that groups 18:21 these aren't life and deather changes, a "hung" issue has pretty much never happened 18:22 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 cprofitt: mostly an accademic issue, we have never had a tie 18:22 exactly 18:22 * cprofitt nods 18:22 so 4 members, move on, 18:22 on the subject of resignation and withdrawl 18:22 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 cprofitt: I'd agree with that 18:22 I think the question is less about the resignation and more about what it implies 18:22 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 if the irc members team isn't up-to-date, update it 18:22 I suggest we consider this matter closed. 18:23 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 I can certainly appreciate that the resignation was done in the heat of the moment while emotions were running high 18:23 especially since IdleOne doesn't seem the sort of person to avoid giving input just because he's not on IRCC *ducks* 18:23 I can understand not wanting to alow a person to un-resign... 18:24 not_rww: I'm not one to hold my tongue that is for sure 18:24 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 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 +1 ikonia 18:24 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 I think that is the larger issue -- not many candidates 18:24 AlanBell: I agree... 18:24 accept the resignation 18:24 regardless of the circumstances of this one 18:25 this is why I don't agree that this should be brushed off as "it happened, move on" 18:25 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 nobody answered my first question: 18:25 20:16 knome: does the IRCC have the teams support and is it trusted to steer the team? 18:25 that does not exclude a person from serving again in the future though does it? 18:25 which is definitely related to the IRCC going forward... 18:25 cprofitt: no, it does not exclude 18:25 cprofitt: no, it certainly doesn't 18:25 good question knome 18:25 but knome's question is, I think, important 18:25 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 18:26 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 so if it does not exclude a person from serving again... use your normal procedure to fill the fifth slot 18:26 I can agree with that. 18:26 ikonia, i'm not doubting anything either, but i want to raise the question up 18:26 put it up to another vote... the same way the IRCC is voted upon today? 18:26 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 18:27 oh. 18:27 so basically stick with 4 until the next election? 18:27 then we can go with 4... just follow the established procedure for restaffing 18:27 I just don't think it should be vacant if it dosn't have to be. 18:27 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 +1 18:27 not to mention I doubt there will be any more volunteers this time around especially with all that has been going on 18:27 I would agree with focusing on getting the team healthy 18:27 I would volunteer, but not a member, etc. 18:28 phunyguy: snap! 18:28 IdleOne: that is a real concern, especially based on the last time 18:28 phunyguy: I think it has to be. Another election would be distracting and add another person to an already-confusing dynamic. 18:28 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 part of the issue was the timing of the open letter, which was just before the call for candidates 18:29 (I actually delayed the call for candidates by a few days as a result) 18:29 OK I can agree with it staying 4 members then. We can revisit later. 18:29 but anyhow, I think we have a route forward which is what I wanted from this agenda item 18:30 hi 18:30 * phunyguy looks at his watch and taps foot at Tm_T 18:30 I'm interested in discussing knome's question next, personally. 18:30 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 yes you can 18:30 because? 18:30 knome: that's a loaded question. 18:30 #agreed stick with 4 people on the IRCC until further notice 18:30 knome: because that person may have the ability, but not the confidence. 18:30 before we go any futher would it be possible to have a meeting without any more "jokey" comments 18:31 and actually disuss things without these off track comments 18:31 phunyguy, of course it's a loaded question, everything is. 18:31 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 if somebody doesn't have the confidence, can i trust they are able to deliver their best? 18:32 knome: there were more candidates than places 18:32 knome: in most cases, yes, because they are judging themselves and put more time into their decision. 18:32 knome: I suggest anyone who isn't confident mails the team 18:32 knome: you mean the team's confidence, right? 18:32 rather than call it out in public 18:32 then their individual issues can be addressed 18:32 ikonia: calling it out in public is fine, as I said, all options are on the table 18:32 (team = council ) 18:32 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 sure. 18:32 AlanBell: it's not really going to go anywhere is it 18:33 I have confidence / I don't - discuss 18:33 So I have the habit of not having confidence that issues are going to get sorted out promptly. 18:33 the issue is with $user / IRC Council 18:33 what not_rww said is also my concern as well 18:33 not_rww: got a specific example? 18:33 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 it probably is fair that we try to slow things down sometimes 18:34 floodbots? 18:34 and sometimes we are slow due to availablility and reluctance to deal with things 18:34 AlanBell: LjL comes to mind. I think he's stated, and I strongly agree, that that took way too long. 18:34 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 AlanBell: FloodBots should have had a decision ages ago. 18:34 I would assume 'easy topics' do not get elevated to the IRCC 18:34 AlanBell, reluctance... well said. 18:34 it is the difficult ones that do 18:34 not_rww: who actually are you ? is not_rww your normal nick name ? 18:34 are you rww ? 18:34 ikonia: yes 18:34 ok, cool 18:35 AlanBell, so if the IRCC is "reluctant" to act on things, should i trust them doing their best for the team? 18:35 how can we deal with that reluctancy? 18:35 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 knome - reluctant does not mean unwilling... 18:35 there are quite a few things that we did reluctantly recently, we did them though 18:36 reluctant means a realization that they need to take things slowly... 18:36 cprofitt, i acknowledge 18:36 to take caution and care with them 18:36 I think there is merit to both sides 18:36 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 thats not peoples fault they are in different time zone, or have to work, or look after a child 18:36 disclaimer: i'm not trying to cause drama and confrontation here... 18:36 I agree that, at times, delay causes issues... just like quick action can 18:37 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 I do have faith that everyone on the IRCC is trying to do their best... quick action or delayed action 18:37 hggdh, i appreciate that 18:37 shall we move on? 18:37 with complex issues there is often a need to gather facts as well... which takes time 18:38 would it be fair to ask the IRCC to publicly response to any issue raised within some specified time, like a week? 18:38 and follow up weekly or beweekly about the status 18:38 Even if the public response is "we are looking into this" 18:38 *bi-weekly 18:38 knome: that sadly doesn't work 18:38 hmm, if it is a defined item somewhere 18:38 ikonia, because? 18:38 !appeals 18:38 If you disagree with a decision by an operator, please first pay #ubuntu-ops a visit. If you are still unhappy, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess for the steps you should take. If you feel the need to discuss the channel rules, please contact the ops on IRC or via the email address on the aforementioned page. 18:38 ^ email it there and create a ticket \o/ 18:38 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 ikonia, ok.. so what you are saying is that "it hasn't worked in the past" 18:39 knome: it would be fair to expect a response... as in 'we are looking at this' ... but not a decision 18:39 cprofitt, i'm not asking for a decision 18:39 knome: totally, yes, thats the correct wording 18:39 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 they have tried that 18:39 AlanBell, so should all issues raised to the IRCC go through the appeals email then? 18:40 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 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 knome: nope, just talk to us 18:40 but if you want SLAs on it, then use the tracker 18:40 is IRCC/IrcTeam subject to Team Reporting? i forget 18:40 AlanBell, then how do i get weekly notices how things are going, since it's not a specified item? 18:40 SLA? 18:40 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 service level agreement 18:40 not_rww, all teams should be 18:41 well, i just think the IRCC should give periodic reports on *all* issues they are working on. 18:41 keep in mind these people are giving up their time 18:41 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 if that's not happening, the rest of the team can't know if there is any progress 18:41 knome: periodic report like, uh, these meetings? 18:41 then I'd suggest perhaps weekly/every two week interim team reports that get rolled into the monthly one 18:41 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 knome: could it be put o the individual to chase up with the council / 18:41 eg: I raise the issue, I chase it up with them 18:41 and actually doing the monthly one ;) 18:41 not_rww, AlanBell: the team reporting sucks pretty much for all teams atm, but all teams are "subject" to it 18:42 and private issues that aren't suitable for there can be status-checked over the ticket thing 18:42 Tm_T, for example, but a report every month tends to just delay and delay 18:42 so what is an "issue" that we are working on? 18:42 knome: I know, I remember when we had monthly reports 18:43 adding more bureaucracy doesn't sound a good way to go though 18:43 AlanBell: if you skip forward to the councils function, this query may go away 18:43 AlanBell, anything that an operator has raised and that needs IRCC intervention or decision that isn't acted on. 18:43 i'm not proposing to add bureaucracy... 18:43 i'm proposing to add communication to both direction 18:44 knome: communication can be done in many ways 18:44 if an operator raises an issue for the IRCC, it would be nice to get reports back 18:44 yes I totally agree with that 18:44 if it's an informal mail to the mailing list, cool 18:44 that would be completely okay 18:44 again, EVEN IF the report was "we're still working on this" 18:45 indeed. And I think this is doable, and should be done 18:45 depends on the issue no, arent the issues raised with the ircc meant to be private/confidential ? 18:45 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 jussi: and those would go over the ticketing system instead 18:45 jussi, obviously, if it's a private issue, report to concerned parties only 18:45 most issues we just deal with them 18:45 not_rww: all issues could go to ticketing if it requires followup 18:46 (an email to the ML, I mean. And, of course, private/confidential issues would have to be sanitised.) 18:46 like someone asks for a cloak, someone needs to get access to a channel etc 18:46 AlanBell, that's good, in that case you obviously do not need to report 18:46 AlanBell, because the issue has been taken care of 18:46 i'm talking about open issues 18:46 and some are not operator specific, like we need to clean up expired cloaks 18:46 and those go on the meeting agenda 18:47 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 anyhow, I think we need to move along . . so 18:47 i'm all in for that... 18:47 #topic Paste and attack prevention in the main channels 18:47 but i would think the tickets should be public for the team to view at all times 18:48 not only if you know the ticket number 18:48 so we had the floodbots for many years, and now they are gone 18:48 AlanBell, so no promise? 18:48 AlanBell, no response? 18:48 knome: you can use LP for that 18:48 AlanBell, no action item? 18:48 tsimpson, that works for me, if the IRCC doesn't think that's too much bureucracy 18:48 knome: I will follow up with something 18:48 thanks. 18:48 knome: I promise to focus on communicating better, happy? (: 18:49 #action AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community 18:49 * meetingology AlanBell to follow up with IRCC reporting back to community 18:49 knome: it already exists https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-irc-council 18:49 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 #action Tm_T to focus on communication 18:49 * meetingology Tm_T to focus on communication 18:49 we have launchpad bugs, the ticket tracker, the mailing list, the meeting logs and you can *talk to us* 18:49 IdleOne: yeah, we just have to do it, time consuming stuff 18:49 tsimpson, yes, i'm okay with that, as long as it's okay for the IRCC, and there is actually responses. 18:49 but cheers, i'm happy with this. 18:49 so, attack prevention 18:49 well reporting on the LP bugs is part of the regular meeting agenda 18:50 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 we put a supybot instance together, running a modified AttackProtector plugin 18:51 code is https://github.com/AlanBell/Supybot-plugins 18:51 source is ? 18:51 there it is 18:51 AlanBell: are they verbose of their doings in some monitoring channel? 18:51 the modification is to allow auto reversal of mode changes 18:51 Tm_T: nope 18:51 allright 18:51 I think it using NOTICE is already on your todo list, right? 18:52 b/c I don't care, but some people presumably do (and AntiSpamMeta does, amusingly) 18:52 this bot was sat in the #unopaste channel for some time for a bit of testing 18:52 not_rww: it is using notice 18:52 AlanBell: it shouldn't be 18:52 AlanBell: right, i think people were saying it /shouldn't/ be noticing channels? 18:52 was the point :) 18:52 * AlanBell thinks it was rww that asked for it to be a notice 18:52 I didn't ask for it to be a notice... 18:52 but sure, it can not be a notice 18:52 someone did, I wouldn't just make that up ;) 18:53 I don't care what it is, but some/most people have crap IRC clients that care a lot about channel notices 18:53 AlanBell: only because some clients send notices to server tab. New users might not know to look there. 18:53 I really don't think it should notice the channel 18:53 ok, I will change that later 18:53 it should either notice the user, or /msg the user, or just use a normal channel message 18:53 I agree no notice 18:53 in channel that is 18:53 what tsimpson said. in decreasing preference order for me 18:54 oh, maybe you said to notice the user 18:54 channel message is best because that is where the user is looking when the are pasting mulitple lines 18:54 AlanBell: that sounds more like something I'd say 18:54 what does that even do? 18:54 not_rww: you mean rww would say? 18:54 noticing the user is like a PM, but they see it everywhere... right? 18:55 go on, notice me :) 18:55 phunyguy: not in all clients 18:55 oh. 18:55 depends on the client 18:55 what it does is send an RFC-compliant message to the user 18:55 mine has settings to put it where you want. 18:55 some clients choose to display that in stupid ways, some don't 18:55 * AlanBell sees nothing, anyone noticed me? 18:56 /invite #ubuntu-br-ops 18:56 AlanBell: you have a notice 18:56 AlanBell, i just did. 18:56 hmm 18:56 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 less than totally effective 18:56 yep. I agree there 18:56 oh, there they are in a status window, not hilighting me 18:56 see 18:57 I would never notice those notices 18:57 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 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 but it's not something I see as likely 18:57 so use PM? 18:57 not_rww: same problem 18:57 time limit the notice to one per 30 secs. 18:57 new users might not see the new tab 18:57 PM is less of a problem 18:58 or one per 1 minute. 18:58 I am horrible at noticing PMs and I am an experienced user. 18:58 AlanBell: but more intrusive? 18:58 presumably you'd have more chance to notice when you see you can't talk :P 18:58 ask IdleOne, chu, and everyone else that PMs me 18:58 anyhow we don't like the notice to the channel so I can change that 18:58 how commonly are there several floodpastes in 1 minute? 18:58 (from different users?) 18:58 in principal though we can get it to do different things, message the monitor channel and other stuff 18:59 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 or even in 5 minutes 18:59 knome: really rare 18:59 see. 18:59 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 just time limit the notice message to N minutes 18:59 phunyguy: only if +z is set, you get a server error if it's not 18:59 so some may not realize... 18:59 oh ok. 18:59 well +z can be set at any point in time. 18:59 (or unset) 18:59 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 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 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 i'll be back in 5 minutes 19:00 AlanBell, is the code available and can you link to it 19:00 knome: of course, and I did :) 19:00 https://github.com/AlanBell/Supybot-plugins 19:01 pull requests welcome 19:01 just missed that. thanks. 19:01 so I think unopaste is staying, I am not hearing howls of anquish 19:01 it isn't another eir ;) 19:02 AlanBell, AttackProtector is the right subdir, right? 19:02 knome: yeah 19:02 cheers. 19:02 oh, I need to push up the /notice bit 19:02 that just isn't something to push upstream 19:03 so, a few items to improve on that, but there we are for now 19:03 AlanBell, i've asked lderan to look at the code and come up with a time-limiter 19:03 it could go upstream, if it was a configuration option 19:04 good starting point and possibility to improve is all we need now 19:04 can ask him to look at that as well, if you want 19:04 tsimpson: yeah, I just hard coded the text for now, if done properly then it might be worth contributing 19:04 AlanBell, asked for the conf option as well. 19:05 AlanBell, lderan will most probably be in touch with you. 19:05 knome: sure, lderan can have all access required, no problem 19:05 AlanBell, yeah, i'm just *reporting back* on progress ;) 19:06 and noticing that somebody is actually looking at it. 19:06 * rww reappears 19:06 hello there 19:06 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 hi lderan 19:06 anyhow, lets trot along to the factoid review \o/ 19:06 #topic Factoid Review 19:06 thank you for taking lead on pastebot by the way AlanBell. was good work :) 19:07 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