Meeting information

Meeting summary

LINK: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda

Review last meetings action items

The discussion about "Review last meetings action items" started at 19:29.

Open items in the IRCC tracker

The discussion about "Open items in the IRCC tracker" started at 19:35.

The discussion about "Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council" started at 19:35.

Membership applications

The discussion about "Membership applications" started at 19:35.

Replace floodbot kick+ban behaviour for webchat users who flood - tsimpson

The discussion about "Replace floodbot kick+ban behaviour for webchat users who flood - tsimpson" started at 19:43.

Any Other Business

The discussion about "Any Other Business" started at 20:28.

Vote results

Action items

  • AlanBell to compile page on bot messages for humans

Action items, by person

People present (lines said)

  • AlanBell (56)

  • IdleOne (34)

  • LjL (23)
  • knome (11)
  • Tm_T (9)
  • meetingology (5)
  • tsimpson (5)
  • bazhang (4)
  • Unit193 (4)
  • lderan (3)
  • ubottu (3)

Full Log

  • 19:25 <AlanBell> #startmeeting IRC team

    19:25 <meetingology> Meeting started Sun May 26 19:25:57 2013 UTC. The chair is AlanBell. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.

    19:25 <meetingology>

    19:25 <meetingology> 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

    19:26 <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda

    19:26 <AlanBell> we have missed a couple of meetings, and this one isn't really getting off to a great start Sad :(

    19:27 <Tm_T> hmmm 19:27 * knome blows to a vuvuzela to lift up the mood

    19:27 <Tm_T> if there's something that require broader participation from IRCC I suppose we can continue via mail with those subject

    19:28 <IdleOne> +1

    19:28 <IdleOne> m4v still hasn't been made a member :/

    19:29 <AlanBell> yes, we can and m4v membership application is something I would really like to do by mail, that has been hanging for far too long

    19:29 <Tm_T> agreed

    19:29 <AlanBell> #topic Review last meetings action items

    19:30 * AlanBell hunts back for the last meeting that wasn't just postponing stuff to the next meeting

    19:33 <AlanBell> gosh, it really has been some time

    19:34 <AlanBell> I will have a further hunt later for undone action items

    19:35 <AlanBell> #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker

    19:35 <AlanBell> there has been no activity in the tracker

    19:35 <AlanBell> #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council

    19:35 <AlanBell> we have no bugs

    19:35 <AlanBell> #topic Membership applications

    19:36 <AlanBell> we do have a membership application from m4v

    19:36 <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/m4v

    19:36 <AlanBell> https://launchpad.net/~m4v

    19:37 <AlanBell> m4v has been a consistent long term contributor to Ubuntu in particular in the IRC area, and especially on the bot infrastructure

    19:37 <bazhang> that should be an insta-pass

    19:37 <Unit193> Is he here?

    19:38 <AlanBell> I am entirely comfortable that the IRCC is an appropriate membership body for this application

    19:38 <bazhang> m4v, not in this channel

    19:38 <AlanBell> the wiki page looks good and there are strong testimonials

    19:39 <IdleOne> m4v gets my +1

    19:39 <IdleOne> please to pass that along on the mailing list Smile :)

    19:39 <AlanBell> we will vote on it by email, anyone else got any thoughts to add?

    19:40 <Tm_T> +1 for mailinglist

    19:40 <lderan> Hello

    19:40 <knome> lderan, o/

    19:42 <Tm_T> let's move to next topic

    19:43 <AlanBell> yup

    19:43 <AlanBell> #topic Replace floodbot kick+ban behaviour for webchat users who flood - tsimpson

    19:44 <AlanBell> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/IRCteamproposal has further details

    19:44 <AlanBell> Currently when a webchat user floods the bots will set a ban and kick the user, then forget about them. I think this behaviour is overly defensive and discriminates against webchat users unfairly. It would make more sense if the bots simply set -e for that user (as to apply the existing quiet on webchat users) instead of the +q they normally set.

    19:44 <AlanBell> This would require some modification to the floodbot script but, as already treats webchat users who flood differently, it shouldn't be too major.

    19:44 <Tm_T> +1 from mew

    19:44 <knome> AlanBell, what's -e ?

    19:44 <AlanBell> removing the exempt

    19:45 <AlanBell> so as I understand it, webchat is +q by default

    19:45 <Tm_T> knome: webchat is banned entirely, individuals have +e exempt that allows them to talk at all

    19:45 <knome> okay

    19:45 <Tm_T> banned, quieted, same effect in this case

    19:45 <IdleOne> knome: currently we +q all webchat, then floodbots set +e so they can speak in the channel.

    19:45 <knome> sounds fair

    19:46 <IdleOne> setting -e would allow them to remain in the channel, but the floodbots would need to let the user know somehow how to get the +e reset.

    19:47 <IdleOne> which would mean that when there are no ops around, the ops channel could end up with users waiting a long time and getting frustrated

    19:47 <knome> wouldn't the webchat users get +e if they just rejoined?

    19:47 <AlanBell> but at the moment they just get banned altogether

    19:47 <knome> or would that have to be done manually

    19:48 <IdleOne> knome: floodbots track which users have been banned so we would need some sort of mechanism to let floobots know that $user is ok to let back in the channel and be able to speak

    19:48 <knome> mhm

    19:50 <IdleOne> I don't think it will be a major issue. +1 to setting -e instead of kick/banning

    19:50 <AlanBell> yeah, I think the policy suggestion is fine, it just needs someone to tangle with the floodbot code and implement it

    19:51 <AlanBell> LJL knows that code, dunno if tsimpson was proposing to do it or not

    19:51 <IdleOne> How is the open sourcing of that code coming, if at all?

    19:51 <AlanBell> it would be good to get other people familiar with the floodbot code

    19:52 <Unit193> Could be just like a quiet, -e and if it continues +b kick, and if not, +e.

    19:52 <AlanBell> the code is on launchpad, not much progress since then, LjL wasn't around for some time and it became less of a priority once it was on launchpad (albeit in a private project)

    19:54 <AlanBell> https://launchpad.net/floodbot is the project

    19:54 <IdleOne> Would it be easier to use supybot with the functionality of the floodbots added?

    19:55 <AlanBell> floodbot is written in PHP rather than python, it is 1807 lines of code

    19:56 <AlanBell> and does some funky stuff with multiple instances of the bot talking to each other through control channels and sharing updates via a pastebin and other surprising and interesting features

    19:57 <IdleOne> short answer: no.

    19:57 <LjL> if the floodbots aren't going to set +b on kicked webchat users any longer, are we confident the ops will know how to actually ban them?

    19:59 <IdleOne> most of us use scripts to do that

    20:01 <LjL> IdleOne: which are webchat-aware?

    20:01 <IdleOne> chanserv.py currently defaults to *591c6114@* for webchat

    20:02 <LjL> uh?

    20:02 <LjL> you mean it bans the ident?

    20:02 <IdleOne> correct

    20:02 <LjL> well that won't let the floodbots know the user is banned

    20:03 <IdleOne> I know

    20:03 <IdleOne> which is why those of us who use chanserv.py try not to ban webchat and instead we remove/kick and let floodbot set the ban

    20:03 <LjL> then again these days the IP is in the webchat mask, so it's less bad than it used to be. but banning the ident or other funny things one might do don't play nice with the system

    20:04 <bazhang> yep

    20:04 <bazhang> just a remove

    20:04 <LjL> IdleOne: and what do the others do, just ban *!*@gateway/whatever?

    20:04 <IdleOne> not sure what auto_bleh does

    20:04 <IdleOne> I haven't used it in a long time

    20:07 <LjL> anyway to answer your question IdleOne, i don't think anyone has worked on the floodbots to bring them to what could be a releasable state. i know i haven't, and at this point, i really don't think i'm ever going to

    20:07 <Tm_T> I have to go, but I support any changes toward equal treatment

    20:07 <AlanBell> ok Tm_T

    20:07 <IdleOne> LjL: understandable.

    20:10 <AlanBell> so, do we think this is still a good idea, a bad idea, or an idea that requires further thought, and a plan for someone to implement it?

    20:10 <IdleOne> currently the only one who could implement it is LjL right?

    20:12 <IdleOne> I think maybe a better idea would be leave things the way they are but have floodbot send a notice to the channel asking for a live op to set a comment/duration on the ban

    20:12 <Unit193> (Autobleh doesn't ban nick or ident, just host. At least, that's how I set it up.)

    20:12 <IdleOne> s/to the channel/to the control channel/

    20:12 <LjL> i can comment out the line the says "ban it", but not sure whether it'll have other side effects i'm currently not thinking about. i guess i can just do it and we'll see. i'm not really in the mood to look at it in detail

    20:13 <LjL> IdleOne: well it already sends a "-WARNING" that people are supposed to highlight on

    20:13 <IdleOne> I would prefer if a live op decides whether to remove the ban or set a time limit on it.

    20:13 <IdleOne> LjL: it doesn't tell us the banID though

    20:14 <LjL> it doesn't have a clue about the "banID"

    20:14 <IdleOne> doesn't ubottu ask floodbot to comment on the ban?

    20:14 <LjL> i don't think so

    20:14 <IdleOne> ubottu: sens me a PM every time I set a ban

    20:14 <ubottu> IdleOne: I am only a bot, please don't think I'm intelligent Smile :)

    20:14 <IdleOne> sends*

    20:15 <LjL> IdleOne, pretty sure the floodbots are exempted from them

    20:15 <LjL> that*

    20:16 <IdleOne> Well, fair treatment is all well and good. IF it means possibly breaking the floodbots other behaviors we might want to hold off.

    20:21 <AlanBell> yeah, I am not sure about this

    20:21 <AlanBell> maybe it could be a banforward rather than a ban

    20:21 <AlanBell> but I am not sure how much of a problem this actually is

    20:21 <LjL> honestly IdleOne, if you want to talk about this, you might as well talk about removing the webchat +b entirely and just handling webchat users manually. the floodbots introduced automatic handling for this because it was hard to match people's real hostnames with the webchat hostname they obtained

    20:21 <LjL> but these days, the hostname for webchat users contains their real IP

    20:21 <LjL> so you can just go ban that as needed

    20:23 <AlanBell> ok, well it was a proposal from tsimpson, who was around earlier

    20:23 <IdleOne> LjL: I didn't see the +b as an issue honestly. I would like it if the floodbots could ask us to set comments on the banID (not a big thing if they don't)

    20:23 <IdleOne> just thought it would be a nice feature

    20:24 <AlanBell> I think we need to discuss further, perhaps on the mailing list, I am not sure that there are any changes that really need to be made, and if there are, it might not be the one proposed

    20:24 <IdleOne> IMO leave things as is. I think we are searching for a tech solution where one isn't needed.

    20:25 <LjL> IdleOne: maybe ubottu can do that, the floodbots sure can't as they don't know about banIDs (and if they somehow got ubottu to tell you, it would be annoyingly complicated to deal with it, and there's no reason why ubottu couldn't do it in the first place)

    20:25 <AlanBell> OK, I will send a mail to the list later with minutes of this meeting and highlight the discussion around this topic

    20:25 <IdleOne> sounds good.

    20:26 <LjL> AlanBell: maybe the only problem that should be a real problem that i see is what happens when people got automatically muted for flooding. if the involved person is a webchat user, then they get an automatic ban, and if there's no one around to remove that, they stay banned.

    20:26 <AlanBell> yeah, I just don't know if that actually happens much to real people who are not intentionally flooding

    20:26 <LjL> AlanBell: as to when ops actually kick someone manually, though... i think they should have a look at the modes being set and the floodbot "-WARNING" and realize

    20:28 <LjL> anyway tsimpson may also be able to implement whatever is needed, i'm sure he's among the people most familiar with both the floodbots and ubottu. get his opinion, or just let him work out what seems best

    20:28 <AlanBell> yeah Smile :)

    20:28 <AlanBell> #topic Any Other Business

    20:28 <tsimpson> ubottu does

    20:28 <tsimpson> "[ubottu] Please somebody comment on the ban of *!*@static-mum- in #ubuntu done by FloodBot3, use: @comment 55195 <comment>" eg

    20:28 <AlanBell> oh, hi tsimpson

    20:28 <tsimpson> \o

    20:28 <LjL> tsimpson: ah that's nice, IdleOne's concern is settled then i think

    20:29 <IdleOne> so the real problem is humans not listening to the bot when it asks for something

    20:29 <LjL> yeah Smile :)

    20:29 <AlanBell> yeah, I think maybe a refresher on what messages the bots do that humans should respond to might be good

    20:29 <Unit193> AlanBell: Review of the ubuntu-bots bugs? I'd think [Eir] ones could be closed?

    20:31 <AlanBell> #action AlanBell to compile page on bot messages for humans

    20:31 * meetingology AlanBell to compile page on bot messages for humans

    20:31 <tsimpson> there is only bug #899630 left

    20:31 <ubottu> bug 899630 in Ubuntu IRC Bots "[Eir] Enable Eir to check other #$buntu channels for banned users and warn" [Wishlist,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/899630

    20:31 <tsimpson> that should probably be closed

    20:31 <AlanBell> interesting point Unit193

    20:31 <AlanBell> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-bots

    20:32 <AlanBell> bug #899630 is now closed

    20:32 <ubottu> bug 899630 in Ubuntu IRC Bots "[Eir] Enable Eir to check other #$buntu channels for banned users and warn" [Wishlist,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/899630

    20:33 <knome> meetingology is tweaked by lderan! \o/

    20:33 <meetingology> knome: Error: "is" is not a valid command.

    20:34 <knome> boo.

    20:34 <lderan> :P

    20:34 <AlanBell> yes, lderan has done some great stuff Smile :) private votes are on the way \o/

    20:34 <knome> and the moin output is so much better, it's pretty much ready-to-copy-paste now

    20:35 <AlanBell> yup

    20:35 <AlanBell> ok, any other stuff before I close this meeting?

    20:35 <lderan> Big Grin :)

    20:35 <AlanBell> #endmeeting

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)

MeetingLogs/IRCC/20130526 (last edited 2013-05-26 20:39:41 by alanbell)