mointesting
test Meeting started by topyli at 18:08:19 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-08-28-18.08.log.html .
Meeting summary
- oCean's membership
- Make friends with eir
LINK: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal (AlanBell, 18:30:12) ACTION: nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson (topyli, 19:24:25)
Meeting ended at 19:28:11 UTC.
Votes
- oCean's membership
- For: 3 Against: 0 Abstained: 0
Action items
- nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson
Action items, by person
- nhandler
- * nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson
- tsimpson
- * nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson
People present (lines said)
- topyli (54)
AlanBell (43)
- nhandler (38)
- Flannel (37)
- oCean (22)
- jussi (18)
- meetingology (15)
- m4v (9)
- elky (0)
- tsimpson (0)
Full Log
18:08:19 <topyli> #startmeeting
18:08:19 <meetingology> Meeting started Sun Aug 28 18:08:19 2011 UTC. The chair is topyli. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
18:08:19 <meetingology> Useful Commands: #topic #action #link #idea #voters #vote #chair #action #agreed #help #info #endmeeting.
18:08:47 <topyli> #topic oCean's membership
18:08:47 <meetingology> TOPIC: oCean's membership
18:08:59 <nhandler> oCean: Care to introduce yourself?
18:09:03 <topyli> oCean: would you like to say sosmething first
18:09:29 <oCean> Eh.. maybe. Let me try, I don't think I can tell anything you don't know already
18:10:17 <oCean> I'm quite new to IRC actually, 2 years ago I registered, I don't really remember why I had to come to #ubuntu, I think it was a wireless issue or something.
18:11:41 <oCean> Then I noticed how valuable the help was, and decided that I could help also. I have my years of linux usage, mostly as sys admin in an oracle world (forgive me) So I'm not really a desktop guy, but I can help where it comes to things like commandline, configuration of certain server software etc
18:13:00 <oCean> Earlier this year I applied for OP in #ubuntu, and no regrets yet.. I do like the community. There's lot's of value in it, more then most think.
18:13:29 <oCean> The details are on the wiki page I think: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ocean
18:13:37 <nhandler> oCean: You said you see the value in the community. Is there anything you would change in the IRC community?
18:13:39 <oCean> be glad to answer questions about that
18:14:18 <topyli> i like the wiki page, you've put a lot of thought in there
18:14:58 <oCean> nhandler: well, not really in the community, but for the #ubuntu channel itself.. many questions are asked over and over again.
18:15:25 <oCean> that's why my page mentions a 'better faq' though I have no idea exactly how to do that.
18:15:55 <oCean> a while ago I gave this a little try on this site: http://www.somedom.com/ this is just to give a general idea
18:16:26 <nhandler> oCean: The factoids are sort of used as an IRC FAQ. We also have the wiki for more detailed FAQ-type stuff
18:16:58 <jussi> woohoo, irc on phone.
18:17:00 <topyli> the factoids depend on someone knowing them
18:17:07 <topyli> jussi!
18:17:16 <oCean> true, this is somewhat the same as the factoids. But the wikiarticles are very comprehensive
18:17:18 <topyli> jussi: do you have backlog?
18:17:36 <jussi> brb, gonna read oceans page. yes, backlog.
18:17:48 <oCean> nhandler: I haven't figured it out completely, yet
18:19:28 <topyli> oCean: you haven't been around for too long, but you have made a rather visible impact on both support and recently as an op. do you think that the community will interest you as much in the future? 18:21:32 * topyli is old, calls two years "not too long"
18:22:05 <oCean> that's a fair question. I'm really a when-started-stick-to-it guy. The interest is genuine, and I try to convince others of the merits of this community.
18:22:20 <oCean> meh, it's a tough question also :/
18:23:13 <topyli> i'm only asking because membership is not supposed to be a reward for the great work that you have undoubtedly done so far, but a commitment as well
18:24:08 <oCean> I understand. I have no problem with that whatsoever.
18:24:10 <topyli> commitment is not the right word here though, we don't make wows or anything
18:24:20 <oCean> no, but I understand I think
18:25:02 <topyli> jussi, nhandler, i'm pretty much ready to vote. do you want to ask something else before that?
18:26:08 <jussi> Im fine. the webpage is pretty comprehensive, and I have watched oceans actions for a while now.
18:26:21 <jussi> so let's vote
18:26:29 <topyli> right
18:26:33 <topyli> #voters
18:26:33 <meetingology> Current voters:
18:26:38 <topyli> yay
18:26:57 <nhandler> topyli: I think you use that to specify a list of approved voters
18:26:58 <AlanBell> #voters topyli jussi nhandler elky tsimpson
18:27:02 <AlanBell> like that
18:27:12 <topyli> ah right
18:27:28 <topyli> #voters topyli jussi elky nhandler tsimpson
18:27:28 <meetingology> Current voters: elky jussi nhandler topyli tsimpson
18:27:46 <nhandler> AlanBell: Out of curiosity, what does #voters default to?
18:27:50 <topyli> [VOTE] oCean's membership
18:27:50 <meetingology> Please vote on: oCean's membership
18:27:50 <meetingology> 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)
18:28:02 <AlanBell> nhandler: defaults to everyone
18:28:13 <nhandler> +1
18:28:13 <meetingology> +1 received from nhandler
18:28:17 <topyli> +1
18:28:17 <meetingology> +1 received from topyli
18:28:19 <jussi> +1
18:28:19 <meetingology> +1 received from jussi
18:28:24 <AlanBell> +1
18:28:30 <AlanBell> note it didn't listen to me
18:28:33 <nhandler>
18:28:34 <topyli> [ENDVOTE]
18:28:34 <meetingology> Voting ended on: oCean's membership
18:28:34 <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
18:28:34 <meetingology> Motion carried
18:28:52 <topyli> welcome to teh funny farm oCean
18:29:02 <oCean> yay! And thanks!
18:29:02 <AlanBell> \o/ oCean
18:29:08 <jussi>
18:29:28 <topyli> [TOPIC] Make friends with eir
18:29:28 <meetingology> TOPIC: Make friends with eir
18:29:38 <topyli> great wording AlanBell
18:29:51 <jussi> +q to that
18:29:52 <AlanBell> I posted some stuff on the extra page
18:29:56 <jussi> err
18:30:01 <jussi> 1
18:30:12 <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal
18:31:31 <AlanBell> eir seems to be down at the moment which is a shame
18:31:36 <jussi> AlanBell: you put in the archived stuff
18:32:04 <AlanBell> oops. At the bottom of the page people
18:32:14 <nhandler> I have no issue increasing the default expiration to 1 week. But if we do that, I think the default action should be to remove rather than nag. After 1 week, there really is no reason to keep the ban/quiet for most of the minor issues that we get. For repeat-offenders, the OP can adjust the expiration/action manulally
18:32:24 <AlanBell> so I think the frequency is set to 11 minutes which is plain silly
18:32:40 <jussi> nhandler: AlanBell +1
18:33:07 <topyli> i'm not the most technical person in the community and i haven't really played with the bots. i can only say i think nhandler and tsimpson's work has been positive here and i would not go and take it away. if there are issues, let's fix them
18:33:27 <topyli> "remove eir" means "return to the previous problems"
18:33:37 <AlanBell> one thing I am not sure about is putting the ubottu ban URL in the $reason of the eir ban
18:33:56 <Flannel> topyli: "remove eir until eir is fixed" was the original proposal. 18:34:00 * nhandler isn't sure if the nag frequency is adjustable. It probably just happenes whenever eir runs through its checks
18:34:10 <jussi> AlanBell: Im -1 on that.
18:34:53 <topyli> Flannel: apologies, not trying to twist anyone's words
18:34:54 <nhandler> I think the extra work of adding the BT url compared to the extra effort involved to manually query ubottu with the banstring doesn't justify it
18:35:05 <Flannel> topyli: No worries. It's just an important distinction.
18:35:18 <AlanBell> nhandler: from my reading of the code it runs through its checks on the frequency tick
18:35:36 <Flannel> topyli: Most of the "no, we can't do that" reactions seem to think it is a "remove eir and scrap it forever" proposal, which it is not.
18:36:07 <topyli> i'm pretty sure there's a way to sanity here too
18:36:10 <AlanBell> "(EXP) ban[27688] *!*@*.example.com was set on #ubuntu by jrib!~jrib@upstream/dev/jrib on 2011-08-26 03:11:23 with reason http://ubottu.com/bans.cgi?log=42635 and had an expiry date of 2011-08-28 03:11:23."
18:36:32 <AlanBell> that would be roughly what the nag messages look like if the reason was set with the ubottu ban URL
18:36:53 <jussi> AlanBell: that would be nice if automated, horrible if not...
18:37:12 <AlanBell> it is basically moving the effort from the end of the ban to the start of the ban
18:37:20 <nhandler> Automating isn't the easiest. Especially if you want to preserve being able to set a real comment in eir and have it go to the BT
18:37:33 <AlanBell> and making one person do it rather than multiple people do it
18:38:04 <nhandler> That is a good point
18:39:01 <AlanBell> I think it might be possible to contribute to freenode an enhancement to the describe_ban function in eir that goes and finds the ubottu link if it is in an ubottu channel
18:39:27 <nhandler> I doubt that freenode would implement that
18:39:46 <nhandler> What if we had ubottu pm a BT url after a ban/quiet is set? Then it is a simple copy/paste
18:40:17 <AlanBell> that sounds like a generally useful thing anyway
18:40:48 <nhandler> That would probably be a fairly simple patch, and it would lend itself to other use-cases as well.
18:40:50 <jussi> If we could do that ubottu could of course just pm eir with the right syntax...
18:41:04 <jussi> or do both
18:41:12 <AlanBell> so these are good ways to automate it later
18:41:13 <nhandler> jussi: That makes it hard for OPs to add real comments about the ban in the btset command
18:41:24 <m4v> My thought is that we should start working in BT2, instead of keep making this frankenstein, it will most likely take like one year or more to make it a reality, but we have to start at some point. Eir isn't going to fix the long times it takes the bantracker to load something.
18:42:01 <nhandler> eir wasn't designed to solve that issue. It was designed to help with the banning and forgetting and the huge ban lists
18:42:25 <m4v> nhandler: which turned out not to be as simple as originally hoped
18:43:08 <m4v> is a lot of effort that could go into BT2 instead.
18:43:42 <jussi> in anycase, it should be easy enough to get ubottu to pm hat url, as she already pms the ban number. 18:43:57 * nhandler thought she stopped doing that for #ubuntu
18:44:11 <oCean> I think so too ^
18:44:25 <jussi> yes, but the code still is there...
18:44:35 <nhandler> Yep.
18:45:24 <AlanBell> ok, so that sounds like something that could be done very soon then
18:45:38 <nhandler> Alright, so in summary: 1) Have ubottu PM BT URLs to make it easy to copy/paste them into btset commands 2) Extend default expiration to 1 week 3) Change default action to auto-remove (ops can manually change this for repeat-offenders)
18:45:50 <AlanBell> then ops setting a ban will get a pm from the two bots, copy from one window to the other, done
18:45:58 <AlanBell> nhandler: and frequency
18:46:06 <Flannel> nhandler: That makes it even less optional than it is currenly. I'm just going to point that out.
18:46:11 <nhandler> It is also worth noting that in the next day or so (just dealing with a few remaining issues), all OPs should be able to adjust all bans
18:46:12 <Flannel> (point #3)
18:46:27 <nhandler> Flannel: In what way?
18:46:39 <Flannel> AlanBell: Actually btset needs to be done in -ops-monitor, not a PM, for ubottu to pick it up.
18:46:57 <jussi> -ops-team
18:46:59 <Flannel> nhandler: By automatically removing a ban I set, using eir is not optional for me.
18:47:03 <Flannel> Sorry, -ops-team
18:47:04 <nhandler> AlanBell: I'm still not sure if that can be changed on a per-channel basis easily, but I will check
18:47:19 <AlanBell> Flannel: good point, but the principal stands
18:47:33 <nhandler> Flannel: If the ban hasn't been dealt with in a week and it isn't a repeat-offender, it should be removed.
18:47:53 <oCean> q: Has it been decided that eir is the way to go? I'm with m4v, to see if we really need eir, or is that out of the question?
18:47:55 <AlanBell> nhandler: the frequency certainly can be changed per channel easily, I am just not quite 100% sure that is the thing the controls the nag repeating
18:47:58 <m4v> It might be worth to set ubottu to nag just before eir removes the ban
18:48:13 <nhandler> Ideally, the OP would have followed the ban up with a PM to discuss it, either resulting in the expiration time being adjusted or the ban being immediately removed
18:48:20 <Flannel> nhandler: eir was originally advertised as being optional. I bit my tongue for a while because it was supposed to be optional, so I didn't want to ruin the party for those who wish to use it.
18:48:42 <Flannel> nhandler: Even when it was put into play last Monday, it was /still/ touted as being optional. This is not optional.
18:49:44 <nhandler> That depends on your definition of "optional".
18:50:15 <Flannel> Well, judging by the wording of the email, "optional" meant "don't ever have to learn eir if you don't want to, and your experience will be the same"
18:51:15 <Flannel> Because automatically removing bans is a major shift in the way we've handled bans. This moves from a "come get it taken care of in -ops" to a "wait it out" sort of policy.
18:51:18 <nhandler> Your experience will be the same if you deal with the bans in a timely manner. For repeat-offenders, youl would need to learn to use 1 new command
18:51:21 <Flannel> I don't want bans to become time-outs.
18:51:38 <oCean> Flannel: +1
18:51:39 <Flannel> nhandler: So, for the record, this represents a shift in operator policy, to time-based bans.
18:52:05 <Flannel> A shift which has not ever been discussed or broguht up, to the operator community.
18:52:32 <Flannel> Let alone decided by the IRCC.
18:52:37 <AlanBell> nhandler: so what is the btset command to change an individual ban to a nag rather than a remove?
18:52:49 <Flannel> (As it seems that this is an unknown side-effect to using eir, not a conscious decision)
18:53:13 <Flannel> AlanBell: remove/ban is the symbol prefix to the duration
18:53:59 <topyli> i agree with Flannel that we advertised it as optional when it really isn't after all
18:55:27 <nhandler> Flannel: A user might get unbanned by eir once, but after that, if they get banned for the same thing again, I would assume that the operator would make some effort to talk to the user and extend the expiration time if they can't
18:56:16 <Flannel> nhandler: And what makes you think that they /wont/ get banned for the same thing again? Considering there was no check that they even understood why they were banned in the first place?
18:56:29 <Flannel> Their ban gets removed (after a week), they wander back in none the wiser
18:57:06 * AlanBell thinks changing the default action is deserving of a full agenda item in the next meeting
18:57:07 <Flannel> We get users always asking "so, how long is my ban?", they see bans as a time out/punishment.
18:58:03 <nhandler> Flannel: So use the ban message or a PM to talk to the user and explain the problem if you think they don't understand. Take the active position rather than waiting for them to come to -ops.
18:58:30 <nhandler> Being an OP is about more than just setting a +b and waiting for the user to come to -ops
18:58:53 <Flannel> nhandler: So, you're proposing that we take an active position in being an operator. Which is fine and good, except how is this different than simply saying "take an active position in commenting and removing your bans"?
18:59:26 <Flannel> nhandler: Also, often the user cannot be dealt with at the time (theyre still angry/etc). And simply having operators 'check if the user is around' randomly for a while isn't sustainable.
18:59:50 <topyli> jussi called, his internet just tried. he'll try to get back online
19:00:02 <topyli> s/tried/died/
19:00:24 <AlanBell> so this is an interesting discussion, but what I wanted to do in this agenda item was propose some simple and uncontroversial changes which will make people happier with eir and each other
19:00:42 <AlanBell> I don't think changing the default action falls into that category
19:00:48 <nhandler> Whether or not they are angry, that doesn't stop someone from sending a PM explain the specific rule that they broke and why it is wrong. They might not be able to agree right then and there, but they will still have been informed for next time
19:01:02 <topyli> the thing is, we have to remove old bans anyway, and we're not doing it. eir makes this easier. how is this a bad thing?
19:02:13 <Flannel> topyli: Again, it's a change in policy to time-based bans.
19:02:35 <Flannel> And it forces people to use eir if they want to opt out of that (and opting out used to be the default way we functioned)
19:02:45 <topyli> alright. so let's document it so it's not a bug
19:03:03 <AlanBell> we also have a bunch of other channels to test stuff on
19:03:35 <Flannel> topyli: and the fact that we didn't even know that eir was going to modify our behavors and policies this way until we tried it does not bode well.
19:03:37 <AlanBell> we could put eir in the other core channels and try auto-expire there first before unleashing it on #ubuntu
19:03:50 <topyli> AlanBell: tsimpson invited people to test eir on a channel way back, but nobody helped
19:04:41 <topyli> Flannel: our policy was never to have hundreds of stale bans nobody even remembers about
19:04:49 <AlanBell> testing live is the way pros do it
19:05:32 <Flannel> topyli: Which is why we clean ban. I don't think that concentrating this effort to a particular period of time is a horrible thing. Some could argue its more efficient.
19:05:52 <AlanBell> anyhow, I would like to have a set of actions agreed that can be implemented straight away
19:06:08 <Flannel> topyli: But if we wanted to set a default length of time for bans, fine, we should consciously have that conversation. We shouldn't just say "surprise! eir makes your bans go away!"
19:06:25 <nhandler> We didn't
19:06:30 <Flannel> nhandler: Sure you did.
19:06:48 <nhandler> eir has been discussed for several months now. Some people chose not to pay attention to the discussions
19:07:06 <Flannel> nhandler: No, eir was presented as optional. That means if I don't want to use it, I don't need to know about it.
19:07:14 <Flannel> From the email last Monday (when eir was put into place):
19:07:17 <Flannel> "The use of eir is just another option available, it’s use is not required to continue managing #ubuntu, though we do encourage everyone to try eir out."
19:07:56 <Flannel> Where in that statement does it say "if you don't interface with eir, your bans will disappear"
19:08:29 <Flannel> (that comes from https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-August/001346.html )
19:09:17 <topyli> there probably is a communication failure there. frankly, i don't think eir is exactly optional for #ubuntu ops
19:09:29 <m4v> for making it optional eir shouldn't take no default action
19:09:39 <Flannel> Like I said, this amounts a policy change, and one that comes across as us not being fully aware of how eir works when we put it into action.
19:09:46 <m4v> err
19:10:13 <topyli> eir's functionality was well communicated well in time
19:10:13 <m4v> double negative, I mean, it should take no action unless told so
19:10:32 <topyli> even i understood most of it!
19:11:29 <topyli> so. we have to finish the meeting soon. what can we conclude on this issue?
19:11:34 <Flannel> topyli: and I fully admit that as soon as I heard 'optional', I stopped paying attention. It was naivety on my part. But that doesn't change the facts.
19:11:40 <topyli> that it is still an issue and everyone disagrees?
19:12:28 <AlanBell> topyli: I would propose that right now we don't change the default action, but start a discussion about doing so on the mailing list and add an agenda item to the next meeting
19:12:41 <m4v> if it removes your bans, or if it nags you to no end. is not optional
19:13:00 <AlanBell> and right now we agree to change the frequency, default duration of eir when it comes back
19:13:27 <AlanBell> and communicate with the ops that it would be a good idea to put the ubottu URL in the eir reason
19:13:30 <nhandler> I don't necessarily agree about changing the default expiration right now, but I can look into the nag-frequency
19:13:45 <nhandler> The ubottu url feature we can work on
19:13:48 <AlanBell> and investigate automating the reason population with the ubottu url
19:14:04 <AlanBell> ops can manually do that right now if they want to
19:14:07 <oCean> So the motion to suspend air is off the table?
19:14:10 <oCean> eir
19:14:18 <AlanBell> there was no such motion
19:14:27 <oCean> AlanBell: on the ML there was
19:14:40 <AlanBell> sorry, yes there was, but not raised by me in this agenda item
19:15:39 <m4v> oCean: for that, I did like to have tsimpson's input, since he's the one coding right now (i'm busy with the factoid plugin) he isn't here I'm afraid.
19:15:47 <AlanBell> ok, so defer the default duration and the default action to the next meeting
19:15:59 <AlanBell> is the default duration 24 or 48 hours right now?
19:16:12 <Flannel> 48h, with 11 minute nag frequency.
19:17:24 <nhandler> So can we conclude this meeting now?
19:18:38 <AlanBell> do you want to put things in #agreed or #action?
19:19:21 <topyli> i'd like to not make any #action but just #agree that we continue the discussion on the mailing list and -ops-team
19:20:39 <topyli> nhandler: what say you? jussi is again internetless, i have him on the phone
19:21:35 <topyli> [AGREED] eir discussion will continu until bukkit returns
19:21:35 <nhandler> topyli: We could probably action or agree the looking into the nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls
19:21:55 <topyli> nhandler: that's right.
19:22:28 <topyli> would you like to action that? jussi would also agree with extending the default frequency
19:22:59 <topyli> (we'll get his confirmation later)
19:23:06 <topyli> (or not
19:23:26 <nhandler> Feel free to give me the actions to look into them. tsimpson would probably need to actually implement the ubottu thing though
19:24:25 <topyli> [ACTION] nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson 19:24:25 * meetingology nhandler to look into extending eir nag frequency and getting ubottu to show BT urls, with assistance from tsimpson
19:24:58 <topyli> are there any other issues? new bugs? 19:25:02 * topyli looks
19:26:01 <topyli> no new ones, just the one about guidelines being too #ubuntu-centric
19:26:21 <topyli> i think it was in good progress, but has since somewhat gone stale
19:26:46 <topyli> is anyone working on that?
19:28:06 <topyli> well, let's just
19:28:11 <topyli> #endmeeting
Generated by MeetBot 0.1.4 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot)
AlanBell/mointesting (last edited 2011-09-05 13:31:43 by alanbell1)