Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[12:04:58] <jussi> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[12:05:10] <jussi> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[12:05:29] <jussi> [topic] -offtopic 'support' discussion policy
[12:05:35] <jussi> Pici: your up.
[12:05:48] <tonyyarusso> jussi: You're!
[12:05:53] <ikonia> hello
[12:05:54] <Pici> Thats me!
[12:05:56] <jussi> meh :D
[12:05:59] <IdleOne> lol tonyyarusso
[12:06:02] <tonyyarusso> That's!
[12:06:32] <Pici> Let me just type this up.
[12:08:34] <Pici> Okay, This particular one has been bothering me for a bit. I feel that we have a bit of a problem with either the definition or enforcement of the 'no supoort questions' in -offtopic rule. Many of us use -offtopic as a place to relax when we're not doing support in #*ubuntu, and the support questions distract from that. On the flip side, lots of questions aren't really apropriate for any #*ubuntu-* channel and people come ...
[12:08:40] <Pici> ... to -ot to try to get them answered.
[12:09:20] <Pici> Additionally, sometimes benign complaints from people about Ubuntu turn into support questions and often people don't want to move to #ubuntu to get them solved.
[12:09:53] <Pici> Also!: Some people think that because we are willing to answer one simple question in -ot that it makes it okay to only ask there and not in any of the main support channels.
[12:10:41] <ikonia> Pici: the ubuntu name space is MASSIVE there is a channel appropriate for almost any support question
[12:10:53] <ikonia> I don't see why ubuntu-offtopic should be used as a lazy option
[12:10:53] <Pici> I don't know what we should or can do about this, but I think we should put something together besides the 'This is not a support channel' in the topic to make it clear to both users and operators what is allowed and what isn't/.
[12:10:53] <jussi> I don't have any problem with the occasional support question in -ot. just people shouldn't expect good answers.
[12:11:03] <Pici> ikonia: Not everything is Ubuntu related.
[12:11:20] <ikonia> Pici: then use the appropriate channel
[12:11:39] <topyli> one other thing against -ot support is that it becomes backup for people who can't immediately get answers in #ubuntu, or worse, are banned
[12:11:51] <ikonia> I have no issues with technical discussion/questions, but "I can't get skype to install" doesn't fit
[12:11:53] <Tm_T> what topyli said
[12:11:58] <ikonia> this is a very common situation in #kubuntu-offtopic also
[12:12:13] <Pici> topyli: agreed.
[12:12:24] <jussi> I think theres a difference between "anyone got any idea on such and such" in a conversational fashion, and someone just coming because they are banned, lazy or otherwise.
[12:12:38] <topyli> still it's a fine line
[12:12:41] <Tm_T> ikonia: I'm ok for having more technical (and often non-kubuntu related) discussion and helping in kubuntu-offtopic
[12:12:51] <ikonia> Tm_T: I'm not
[12:13:11] <IdleOne> i think that any clearly ubuntu support related question should be directed to the proper channel. Just saying "this is NOT a support channel" and not offering the correct venue is rude.
[12:13:12] <Pici> Theres a difference between technical discussion and support, but I agree that its a fine line in some cases.
[12:13:18] <ikonia> Tm_T: I think discussion is great, but people are using it for support as #kubuntu can be quiet
[12:13:19] <Tm_T> ikonia: ye, often it's better in support channel
[12:13:34] <tonyyarusso> I don't mind when -ot regulars ask something because they happened to be thinking about it, but when people join to ask a support question that's not helpful.
[12:13:42] <ikonia> Pici: common sense application, direct to correct channel if it's getting into a "my samba box won't authenticate" type of situation
[12:14:08] <jussi> I really think this comes back to the "common sense" thing - ops need to guide the discussion where appropriate. Some, casual support shouldnt be an issue f we regulate too hard we will discourage people from coming at all.
[12:14:25] <jussi> tonyyarusso: +1
[12:14:30] <ikonia> jussi: if they are coming for support only, then they should'nt be there
[12:14:50] <ikonia> but I agree, common sense and juding the state of the channel/discussion/question would be best
[12:15:18] <ikonia> the only issue is it now opens the door for "you let $X talk about $Y - why not me"
[12:15:32] <Pici> ikonia: Right, which is why I put this on the agenda.
[12:15:58] <Pici> As much as I don't like having to codify every part of what we do, I think that in this case some sort of guidelines would be best.
[12:16:01] <tonyyarusso> We don't necessarily need to be kicking people out for asking a support question, but something I often see is that person A asks the question, person B tells them it's not a support channel and directs them to the proper place to follow up with their issue, and then person C starts answering/discussing the question anyway - person C is where we need to change things, not person A.
[12:16:32] <tonyyarusso> ie, explaining to those in the channel how we would like to deal with such things, and making sure everyone is clear and on board with our plan.
[12:17:20] <Pici> Would it help if I put together an OfftopicSupportGuidelines page? Or is that too much?
[12:17:42] <topyli> that would validate the concept of "support in -ot" :)
[12:17:43] <jussi> Pici: I think an appropriate paragrapgh on the guidelines might be better
[12:17:50] <IdleOne> least with a page like that everybody could be clear on what is what
[12:18:08] <Pici> Okay, I'll write something up and we can discuss it next meeting or so.
[12:18:16] <jussi> ok, great.
[12:18:34] <Pici> jussi: Throw an [action] at me
[12:18:37] <jussi> [ACTION] Pici to write a proposal
[12:18:44] <IdleOne> heh
[12:18:45] <Pici> wee
[12:18:56] <jussi> bleh
[12:18:59] <IdleOne> vague any?
[12:19:04] <jussi> backspace way too close to enter
[12:19:09] <Pici> Well *I* know what I'm doing.
[12:19:16] <topyli> "trust me"
[12:19:28] <Pici> "Come with me if you want to live"
[12:19:55] <jussi> [topic] Please provide an active wiki page displaying all pending items/actions and their current status and last updated date
[12:20:00] <jussi> ikonia: youre up
[12:20:09] <jussi> tonyyarusso: shush :P
[12:20:48] <jussi> tonyyarusso: or do you really want the ' :P
[12:21:03] <ikonia> I think this has been discussed before
[12:21:17] <tonyyarusso> I'll jus't use extr'a to make u'p for it.
[12:21:18] <ikonia> just needs an active/maintained wiki page showing what's being one by the council
[12:21:37] <ikonia> partially already covered by the reproting process
[12:21:45] <jussi> So did I. We have put more effor into the team report, and we aim to maintain that: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRCCouncil/TeamReports/
[12:21:53] <topyli> we have discussed this in our smoke-filled cabinet too, and jussi has done someth...
[12:21:56] <topyli> like so
[12:22:10] <jussi> ikonia: shall we skip to the next one?
[12:22:18] <ikonia> what was next sorry
[12:22:23] <ikonia> ooh yes
[12:22:27] <jussi> [topic] Ubuntu IRC name space over crowded and managed to different standards beyond that of the Ubuntu IRC principles.
[12:22:29] <ikonia> skip this one, I think it's covered
[12:22:40] <ikonia> ah, this is painful, strap in
[12:22:50] <jussi> is Seeker`here?
[12:23:20] <IdleOne> doesn't appear to be
[12:23:22] <jussi> right, moving on then.
[12:23:28] <jussi> [topic] Ubuntu operator recruitment process a waste of time, impractical and not required
[12:23:32] <ikonia> whoaaa
[12:23:39] <ikonia> what happened to the name space overcrowed ?
[12:23:53] <jussi> ikonia: you said skip it?
[12:23:56] <topyli> i think anyone can volunteer to help us without formal proposals in meetings, btw
[12:24:17] <ikonia> I meant the wiki page one , that had been discussed before and I think a solution is in progres
[12:24:21] <ikonia> progress
[12:24:25] <jussi> oh, letws go back then :)
[12:24:34] <jussi> Sorry
[12:24:43] <ikonia> no problem, IRC delay
[12:25:06] <tonyyarusso> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ChannelList for reference
[12:25:50] <ikonia> bascially, the IRC name space for ubuntu is massive, and they all have different standards rules, (excluding locos) I think there needs to be some namespace rules which you HAVE to accept before you can open an #ubuntu- channel
[12:26:07] <Pici> Such as?
[12:26:18] <ikonia> language, COC, that sort of thing
[12:26:27] <jussi> Well they do - they must be coc compliant
[12:26:40] <IdleOne> they aren't always
[12:26:49] <ikonia> ok - so there needs to be a policy where people sign up their channel agreeing it as the owner
[12:26:50] <Pici> ikonia: Is there a particular channel that you're thinking of that doesn't meet those?
[12:26:56] <ikonia> Pici: there are a few,
[12:27:00] <IdleOne> some channels are a lot more slack about the language rule
[12:27:02] <ikonia> other things like a minimum or 2 ops etc
[12:27:14] <jussi> If you know some, please send us mail or ping us.
[12:27:17] <ikonia> just a basic set of requirements
[12:27:20] <ikonia> it's too easy to just start #ubuntu-$blah and do what you want
[12:27:23] <jussi> ikonia: +1 on the 2 foundrs
[12:27:30] <tonyyarusso> Elephant in the room example of language laxness: -devel :P
[12:27:41] <IdleOne> IRCC MUST be on the access list should be one also
[12:27:54] <ikonia> IdleOne: tough as ircc are only responsible for core channels
[12:28:11] <ikonia> jussi: I'll knockup up some base outlines if that's acceptable, nothing tough, just obvious stuff
[12:28:19] <jussi> ikonia: no, we are responsible across the namespace - we are group contacts
[12:28:30] <jussi> ikonia: that would be great
[12:28:32] <ikonia> that way there is something written down to be judged on or held accountable to
[12:28:39] <ikonia> thats fine, I'll sort that
[12:28:40] <jussi> Pici: topyli tsimpson thoughts?
[12:28:41] <tonyyarusso> Once Freenode implements their new Group Management System there will be a technical prevention in place to prevent opening of a new #ubuntu-* channel without approval, but we'll probably all be dead before that happens.
[12:28:41] <Pici> We're only directly responsible for the operation of the core channels though.
[12:28:50] <ikonia> topyli: willl you be my scribe for the wiki again (joking)
[12:29:15] <topyli> ikonia: certainly, if you deliver such quality drafts :)
[12:29:28] <jussi> Pici: to a point, if there is an issue with a non core channel, then its our issue.
[12:29:31] <topyli> (like you did last time)
[12:29:39] <jussi> right so.
[12:29:52] <Pici> jussi: I agree. I wasn't disagreeing with your prior point.
[12:30:12] <jussi> [action] ikonia to draft a set of basic guidelines for channel creation
[12:30:26] <tsimpson> so we're talking about https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/CreatingChannels? (which seems to be well hidden on the wiki)
[12:30:33] <jussi> ikonia: may I suggest you use the current channel creation page as a base?
[12:30:34] <tonyyarusso> I'm still a bit "concerned" that certain core channels still see themselves as a separate community rather than part of Ubuntu and want to maintain parallel control - we really ought to have a more binary status of being an Ubuntu core channel or not, rather than fuzzy "we're just not talking about this" statuses.
[12:30:45] <topyli> tsimpson: that would seem an appropriate place for it
[12:30:46] <ikonia> jussi: totally, the more thats there, the easier it is
[12:31:10] <jussi> tonyyarusso: thats coming later, hold your horses :D
[12:31:17] <tonyyarusso> Oh, okie doke :)
[12:31:18] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: hang in, thats on the agenda
[12:31:28] <jussi> ikonia: shall we move on?
[12:31:29] <tonyyarusso> ah, I see it now.
[12:31:31] <ikonia> sure
[12:31:45] <jussi> right, so I topiced it already...
[12:31:57] <jussi> ikoniayou're turn again
[12:32:18] <ikonia> which one is it, I missed the topic
[12:32:20] <ikonia> (not got wiki open, on console)
[12:32:29] <jussi> buntu operator recruitment process a waste of time, impractical and not required
[12:32:33] <ikonia> ta
[12:33:21] <ikonia> ok, so I personally feel the operator recruitment process is not a useful process and actually an attempt to pay lip service to have $something rather than actually apply it, I don't find it usable and I find the council members bypassing it when appropriate
[12:34:11] <tonyyarusso> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorRequirements
[12:34:26] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: you're on fire
[12:34:32] <jussi> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/OperatorRequirements
[12:34:38] <Pici> Stop drop and roll.
[12:35:12] <IdleOne> Trust him if you want to live
[12:35:18] <jussi> ikonia: could you explain some more?
[12:35:26] <Pici> ikonia: Are you talking about #ubuntu+1 when you mean that the process has been bypassed?
[12:35:32] <tonyyarusso> The actual requirements part is relatively straightforward, really. Do you mean that, or the "application process"?
[12:35:36] <ikonia> Pici: yes, that is an example of it
[12:35:41] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: the application process
[12:36:17] <ikonia> I don't find the advertising and application process useful for finding the best candidates (in my view) I don't find the testominals process on wiki pages useful,
[12:36:33] <tonyyarusso> Agreed. Steps 1 and 4 are the only ones I think we really need.
[12:36:40] <ikonia> I just don't feel the actual application process where people who have not even visited the channel they are applying to be an op in as worth while
[12:36:46] <ikonia> then having to sort through the applications is a waste
[12:36:58] <ikonia> rather than approaching people who appear to make good ops when needed
[12:37:02] <tonyyarusso> If you're actually fit for the job, you shouldn't need a wiki page or testimonial, since we should already know who you are and why you're qualified.
[12:37:33] <ikonia> Pici: FYI: I approve of what you did with +1 but it bypassed the process that is now being made a meal of for #ubuntu-ops
[12:37:45] <tsimpson> ikonia: we didn't just arbitrarily decide to bypass the process for +1, we decided and voted at a meeting
[12:37:48] <tonyyarusso> I'd say basically apply on Launchpad to express interest, and then the Council can just skim the list looking for people they recognize as useful.
[12:37:49] <topyli> ikonia: the thing is, we don't know everybody who might be a good op anymore. it probably worked well in 2005
[12:38:02] <bilalakhtar> Sorry for coming right in between the meeting, but I would like something to be discussed. Its concerning the recent increase of spam on the ubuntu channels and elsewhere on freenode, and whether we should add a line to the #ubuntu topic on the fact that users should ignore spam. Please poke me when all agenda items are over and this could be discussed. Thanks!
[12:38:03] <jussi> ikonia: tonyyarusso - the CC made the decision we needed to have an application process, However, perhaps we can make it better?
[12:38:04] <topyli> ikonia: sorting the applications hasn't been that big a burden either
[12:38:17] <ikonia> tsimpson: that doesn't make it acceptable, you have that process, when it was talked about for #ubuntu-ops it was pushed to the process, rather than common sense
[12:38:20] <Pici> tonyyarusso: The problem is that we're not active 24 hours and we don't know everyone who contributes.
[12:38:34] <IdleOne> topyli: ask the current ops to look over the IRCC picks for possible op?
[12:38:48] <ikonia> jussi: I think there should be a process, don't disagree, I just think the other one is not appropriate or a good use of time
[12:38:49] <IdleOne> get the current ops opinions and then make a final decision
[12:38:54] <Pici> I'd be for letting the current ops be part of the voting process.
[12:38:58] <tonyyarusso> jussi: I think it's useful to apply, rather than the IRCC just /query-ing people to say "hey, wanna op?" (that's how I started), but I don't know if it needs anything more than just applying.
[12:39:09] <jussi> We already garner opinions from the current ops
[12:39:12] <tonyyarusso> topyli has a point though.
[12:39:28] <topyli> Pici: we do consult the current ops
[12:39:37] <tsimpson> ikonia: it was also decided at a meeting that -ops should be a "normal" core channel as far as op process goes
[12:39:46] <ikonia> tsimpson: but so is #ubuntu+1
[12:39:53] <ikonia> and that wasn't treated as normal
[12:39:54] <Pici> topyli: We only did that this time because I suggested it, its not even really part of the application process.
[12:40:09] <tonyyarusso> While the IRCC won't know everyone who would make a good op, if we're doing our jobs well I would imagine SOMEBODY on the ops team should know something about any of the people who would be good, so perhaps the "solicit feedback" step is useful, but not the wiki page and whatnot.
[12:40:10] <topyli> Pici: it should be :)
[12:40:23] <tsimpson> ikonia: my point being: when we decided to depart from the process, it was a special decision, with a public vote at a meeting
[12:40:42] <ikonia> tsimpson: yes, but the same was not done for #ubuntu-ops when people where crying out for people ASAP
[12:40:49] <tonyyarusso> bilalakhtar: You can add it to the end of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda - if we don't get to it today I'd imagine we can roll it over to the next meeting's agenda.
[12:40:55] <ikonia> it was put to the drawn out process and not vote of overiding it was called
[12:40:56] <jussi> When the Ubuntu IRC Council notices the need to have more operators in a particular channel or channels, or to add another Core Operator, 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
[12:40:57] <jussi> , or listed on the applicants wiki page.
[12:41:14] <IdleOne> the wiki testimonials put me in a weird position this last round, I chose to not give any public testimonials because I did not want to hurt any feelings.
[12:41:17] <ikonia> jussi: but you didn't to that
[12:41:20] <ikonia> you started putting it in channel topics, advertising in ubuntu planet
[12:41:23] <ikonia> it became a publicity show
[12:41:33] <jussi> ikonia: we did!
[12:41:38] <ikonia> jussi: yes,
[12:41:57] <topyli> IdleOne: mailing irc-council@ works too, and it's private
[12:42:24] <ikonia> topyli: I don't believe that's valid
[12:42:24] <IdleOne> topyli: and that is what I did thanks to Pici's email asking for opinions
[12:42:31] <ikonia> ops where chosen for channels they have never visited
[12:42:33] <tonyyarusso> ikonia: I put it in the -ot topic actually.
[12:42:40] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: yes, but it still happened
[12:42:43] <ikonia> I don't care who did it
[12:42:47] <ikonia> the process is documented
[12:42:48] <Pici> ikonia: I don't believe that happened.
[12:42:54] <ikonia> Pici: we disagree on that
[12:43:20] <ikonia> but that's not for this meeting
[12:43:25] <tonyyarusso> jussi: I'm unclear how the wiki pages are useful at all. I think just e-mailing the IRCC directly (and privately) with feedback on the full slate is probably appropriate.
[12:43:32] <jussi> I dont have any issue with putting in the topic or planet or so - just because the process doesnt say we must do that it doesn mean we cant.
[12:43:33] <ikonia> I'm just expressing that I feel the current process is not worthwhile and does not bring the best results
[12:43:42] <ikonia> jussi: I do have an issue with it
[12:43:52] <ikonia> jussi: the process requires you to be subscribed to the mailing list
[12:43:56] <ikonia> that's where it should happen
[12:44:01] <tonyyarusso> I also don't think the announcement is really useful. If we're going to announce, we should do it loudly, but we'd probably be better off not doing so at all.
[12:44:02] <jussi> ikonia: not everyone who can and should be an op is on the list
[12:44:18] <Pici> I don't expect all of our helpers to be subscribed to the list.
[12:44:18] <ikonia> if you want to be an op - you should be on the list to meet th erequirements
[12:44:21] <ikonia> jussi: then they don't meet the requirements
[12:44:22] <ikonia> really ?
[12:44:32] <tonyyarusso> If someone's interested in the position, they should be actually interested enough to apply, not do it on a lark because we decided this week was the one where we were "seeking" people.
[12:45:23] <ikonia> maybe leave that as an option for the council to think about an alternative process
[12:45:29] <tonyyarusso> ikonia: The wording of the requirements does not clearly say that being subscribed to the list is a *prerequisite*, only that they must after accepting the position.
[12:45:32] <ikonia> as I don't think you'll get a solution in this discussion
[12:45:37] <topyli> ikonia: what's your suggestion then? we go back to nominating ops at will?
[12:45:54] <ikonia> topyli: as and when needed, ask the team for opinions as the team are active in the channels they are in
[12:45:58] <ikonia> at a high level
[12:46:25] <ikonia> but I appreicate thats over simple
[12:46:37] <Pici> How about we all think about this and return to the topic at another meeting?
[12:46:57] <ikonia> Pici: thats my suggestion, it just in my view needs tweaking to be more usable,
[12:47:03] <tonyyarusso> My proposal: 1) People "apply" on Launchpad continuously. 2) At certain times (perhaps on a predefined schedule) the IRCC compiles a list of those who have done so and forwards it to the ML. 3) Current ops send feedback to the IRCC on all names on that list. 4) Based on that feedback, the IRCC chooses new ops and announces them on the list.
[12:47:15] <Pici> We don't need to come up with answers right now, but getting the brainstorming started is a good start.
[12:47:33] <ikonia> Pici: exactly, I'm not expecting a solution now, just making my opinion that it's not working known
[12:47:40] <IdleOne> I like tonyyarusso proposal
[12:48:23] <jussi> tonyyarusso: thats pretty much what we do now, no?
[12:48:23] <topyli> i like tonyyarusso's proposal too. it's the current process isn't it? :)
[12:48:37] <IdleOne> no, not quite
[12:48:46] <IdleOne> remove the wiki testimonials
[12:48:51] <IdleOne> no need for them
[12:48:54] <tonyyarusso> jussi: with like three extra steps, that unnecessariness being the issue, afaict.
[12:49:02] <IdleOne> + ask current ops for opinions
[12:49:10] <jussi> ikonia: thats in there
[12:49:13] <jussi> IdleOne:
[12:49:16] <jussi> sorry
[12:49:39] <Pici> Its not clear.
[12:49:48] <IdleOne> make it clear :)
[12:49:55] <topyli> aye
[12:50:02] <jussi> Ok, so we need to clarify whats written there, and perhaps remove the wiki page part?
[12:50:08] <tonyyarusso> Sounds right.
[12:50:19] <topyli> ok, sounds sane
[12:50:23] <jussi> Imfine with that, shall we vote?
[12:50:25] <ikonia> how about a sponsorship process ?
[12:50:33] <ikonia> eg: get sponsorship from 2 existing ops
[12:50:36] <ikonia> something like that
[12:50:38] <IdleOne> going around asking people for a testimonial puts people in awkward position. I might like the person and feel they do an awesome job in the community but that does not mean I think they would be good op material
[12:50:43] <tonyyarusso> ikonia: How would that have added value over soliciting opinions already?
[12:50:53] <tonyyarusso> IdleOne: +1
[12:50:55] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: because it stops random people just applying
[12:51:17] <ikonia> tonyyarusso: if you can't find an op to sponsor you....there is something wrong
[12:51:20] <ikonia> it's only a thought
[12:51:20] <tsimpson> ikonia: I certainly don't think that should be a prerequisite
[12:51:31] <tonyyarusso> ikonia: Who cares if random people apply? Unless the list has like 100 people on it and becomes burdensome to compile, I don't see a problem.
[12:51:36] <topyli> ikonia: we're not having a problem with "random people". if it becomes a problem, we can think
[12:51:39] <charlie-tca> Isn't sponsorship the same as getting testamonials from other ops?
[12:51:43] <IdleOne> me either, it invites begging for ops
[12:51:44] <Pici> Yes.
[12:51:48] <ikonia> fair enough
[12:52:23] <jussi> [vote] clarify the process for op applications and remove the wiki page requirement
[12:52:41] <topyli> +1
[12:52:44] <jussi> +1
[12:52:46] <tsimpson> +1
[12:52:48] <Pici> I'd prefer to see everything written up before voting....
[12:53:02] <Pici> -1
[12:53:12] <tonyyarusso> Pici: I think we're voting on doing the writeup - approving the actual result will come next meeting.
[12:53:20] <jussi> Pici: we need to approve it at the next meeting I suppose
[12:53:24] <tsimpson> Pici: we are voting that it needs changing
[12:53:29] <Pici> +1
[12:53:34] <IdleOne> hehe
[12:53:40] <Pici> fine bot, don't answer me.
[12:53:41] <topyli> i wonder if that works :)
[12:53:43] <Pici> Doesn't matter.
[12:53:52] <jussi> [endvote]?
[12:53:56] <ikonia> as long as you review it, I'm happy
[12:54:09] <Pici> 13:53:29 You have already voted on this topic.
[12:54:09] <IdleOne> but you don't have quorum now according to the vote
[12:54:11] <jussi> #endvote
[12:54:27] <jussi> bots...
[12:54:31] <tonyyarusso> hehe
[12:54:38] * topyli prods mooty-bot
[12:54:46] <tonyyarusso> Logs overrule MootBot methinks. :)
[12:54:47] <tsimpson> IdleOne: 3 is a quorum
[12:55:03] <IdleOne> Count is now 2
[12:55:03] <jussi> [ENDVOTE]
[12:55:08] <jussi> lol
[12:55:11] <IdleOne> but yeah +1 tonyyarusso
[12:55:26] <tonyyarusso> Moveth on time?
[12:55:28] <jussi> Im going to reword my proposal
[12:55:49] <jussi> [topic]?Creation of a #ubuntu-ops-backstage channel.
[12:56:11] <Pici> In the future, I don't think we need to vote on writing up a propsal, as anyone is free to write up a proposal for us.
[12:56:19] <tonyyarusso> Great, now IRC has a secret snogging area.
[12:56:54] <ikonia> I think we missed a topic
[12:57:01] <IdleOne> I don't like the name of that channel
[12:57:01] <tonyyarusso> yep
[12:57:02] <jussi> I would like to propose we create a channel for backstage co-ordination. This would be open to all the people in -ops currently, and would be logged by a CC only logbot.
[12:57:02] <topyli> oh yeah
[12:57:08] <Pici> Indeed we did.
[12:57:14] <jussi> name isnt important right now
[12:57:20] <tonyyarusso> We can come back to it - mootbot is already confused enough ;)
[12:57:26] <Pici> You skipped ikonia's other topic.
[12:57:28] <jussi> ikonia: My apologies!!
[12:57:30] <ikonia> no problem
[12:57:33] <ikonia> we can go back to it
[12:57:35] <Pici> And we only have 3 minutes left.
[12:57:35] <ikonia> carry on
[12:57:41] <ikonia> save it for later
[12:57:41] <jussi> ok, this hsouldnt take too long
[12:57:54] <tonyyarusso> co-ordination of what jussi?
[12:58:39] <tonyyarusso> (Yay discussions we've had like 8 times! :P)
[12:59:13] <jussi> tonyyarusso: its a place where we can discus how to deal with people in real time, with more than one person. ie. what goes on in PM atm, but with more opinions present
[12:59:59] <tonyyarusso> bother, when you put it sensibly like that I might actually agree with you.
[13:00:15] <jussi> :)
[13:00:53] <IdleOne> so, no non-op users would be allowed in?
[13:01:03] <jussi> no
[13:01:05] <jussi> oh
[13:01:07] <jussi> yes
[13:01:20] <jussi> (I missed the "no" :D
[13:01:21] <Pici> what
[13:01:24] <IdleOne> sorry I made that not clear. reread it myself a couple times
[13:01:33] <tonyyarusso> If we did, I'd propose a channel name of #ubuntu-ops-discuss or similar, rather than -backstage, to remind us (and others) that it's for that purpose, not secret conniving whatnot.
[13:01:34] <jussi> Invite only for those with +v in -ops
[13:01:44] <jussi> tonyyarusso: yes, I agree
[13:02:20] <IdleOne> all the conniving should be done in PM :P
[13:02:45] <jussi> Does anyone have opinions on this? good? bad? indifferent?
[13:03:03] <IdleOne> I like the idea.
[13:03:16] <tonyyarusso> Mostly indifferent for me. (I haven't done much of the situations that involve PMing lately.)
[13:03:42] <Pici> I'm getting the itching feeling that people are going to calling us out for having a secret meeting place and that the op is just one big clique etc.
[13:03:48] <IdleOne> provided the logs are not public but available to the ops and the IRCC, CC
[13:04:15] <Pici> And thats where we go to make fun of users. Which will happen, like it or not.
[13:04:27] <jussi> Pici: However, wth the CC to point to for complaints like that.
[13:04:43] <topyli> well nalioth had a good logging proposal in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2010-November/001148.html
[13:04:44] <Pici> jussi: Who is going to complain?
[13:04:45] <tonyyarusso> Meh, we make fun of each other WAY more than users :)
[13:05:05] <jussi> topyli: +1
[13:05:15] <topyli> tonyyarusso: and we prefer to use a publicly logged channel for that anyway!
[13:05:37] <tonyyarusso> indeed!
[13:05:58] <Pici> topyli: That appears to be Hobbsee, not nalioth.
[13:06:10] <jussi> Shall we vote then?
[13:06:15] <topyli> yeah, way to look at what i'm linking to
[13:06:16] <IdleOne> I still would like the logs available to ops
[13:06:24] <IdleOne> not just the CC
[13:06:32] <ikonia> I think this needs to go back to the list
[13:06:36] <jussi> IdleOne: I think we can sort that.
[13:06:36] <topyli> IdleOne: you're free to log any channels you're in :)
[13:06:41] <ikonia> I think you need more input to do this
[13:06:48] <IdleOne> topyli: what about when my client is offline?
[13:06:54] <Pici> ikonia: I'm inclined to agree with that.
[13:06:55] <jussi> ikonia: we had a fair discussion on the list already
[13:07:02] <ikonia> jussi: I don't think we did
[13:07:12] <topyli> oh yeah, there are clients like that. i don't mind having that, yeah
[13:07:17] <ikonia> jussi: there was a short burst and it went quiet
[13:07:19] <ikonia> jussi: I think you need to say, I am going to do this, not "what do you think"
[13:07:30] <IdleOne> topyli: there are still a few ops who go offline :)
[13:07:32] <tonyyarusso> IdleOne: Client....offline?
[13:07:34] <tonyyarusso> :P
[13:07:49] <Pici> We had a discussion about your whole #ubuntu-ops-international-collab channel, not one for just this idea.
[13:08:13] <tsimpson> ikonia: but he wasn't saying that he was going to do that, rather discussing if it should be done
[13:08:29] <Pici> Also, I think we need to make it clear that some discussions still belong in -ops. I don't like the idea of everything happening behind closed doors.
[13:08:53] <ikonia> tsimpson: but you are now about to vote on it
[13:09:04] <IdleOne> it should be more of a help channel for ops. maybe use #ubuntu-irc-helpers
[13:09:11] <tsimpson> ikonia: exactly, so we haven't yet decided
[13:09:17] <jussi> Right, seems we should take this to the list.
[13:09:17] <ikonia> I don't think there is enough input of this meeting to agree to do it
[13:09:44] <jussi> [agreed] Take this proposal to the list
[13:09:59] <Pici> yay for vaugeness again
[13:10:06] <jussi> [topic] Ubuntu IRC Council not responsible for all core channels
[13:10:21] <jussi> ikonia: you're turn
[13:10:23] <Pici> How long is this meeting supposed to run?
[13:10:28] <Pici> We're already 1:10 in.
[13:10:28] <IdleOne> wait
[13:10:32] <IdleOne> need less vague
[13:10:34] <ikonia> jussi: next meeting I think, ot of time
[13:10:36] <ikonia> out
[13:10:43] <jussi> Im fine to stick around
[13:10:54] <ikonia> is that allowed ? and how are the others fixed ?
[13:10:56] <jussi> but If others arent, no issues
[13:11:06] <topyli> i have a few minutes in me still if needed
[13:11:09] <jussi> topyli: tsimpson Pici?
[13:11:45] <Pici> jussi: I can stick around too.
[13:11:49] <tsimpson> well, I'm a bit ill, so I'd rather not stay too long
[13:12:02] <jussi> Ok, lets leave it for next time.
[13:12:03] <ikonia> tsimpson: it can wait, the world won't end
[13:12:09] <Pici> Hopefully.
[13:12:18] <IdleOne> nice knowing you if it does
[13:12:22] <jussi> If it does, then its not an issue :D
[13:12:25] <Pici> Yay.
[13:12:29] <topyli> hah
[13:12:36] <jussi> ok, any urgent business?
[13:13:07] <tonyyarusso> How to keep IRC support running smoothly during the upcoming apocalypse?
[13:13:16] <jussi> ha
[13:13:20] <jussi> ?endmeeting
[13:13:23] <IdleOne> tonyyarusso: you're on your own
[13:13:26] <jussi> #endmeeting