Attack at the council

Anthony Vickers anthony at
Mon Dec 18 19:02:22 UTC 2006

John Vivirito wrote:
> About the council of non ops. I think this is a bad idea because if they
> were trusted enough to be in that position than they would be trusted
> enough to be ops. I think the IRC council we have now will be fine once
> we get all members of it once again and they are active. You will not
> always see a council member online at the time of a debate but they WILL
> look over the logs or another way get the info they need to rectify the
> issue at hand just dont expect it to happen right away. even calling EMS
> it takes them a while to get to where you live depending on wher eyou
> live. The council can have meetings every 2 weeks or as nessicary to
> clear up issues or debates that happened since past meetings. These
> problems dont occur often so i dont see a need to meet everyday.
> - --
> GnomeFreak
> Linux User# 414246
> Ubuntu User# 8175
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
> iD8DBQFFht7Zqig4QTwcPCoRAi1xAJ42OXTGnIPQ2g4i3bSRrrrU2i/cDwCfSzsA
> 12oRR7DERHB64vNedrq4S48=
> =YlHA
Yes, though I'm not suggesting the role of the non-ops council replace 
that of the IRC council. I'm suggesting a means of resolution from an 
apparent and evident unbiased third party. A means by which to bridge 
the polarisation that is inevitable from the two tier system that is in 
place. Trust shouldn't equate to ops and I think that's a big part of 
the problem. That feeds the idea that ops are right and users are wrong, 
full stop. Also, issues often need diverting and cooling at the point 
incident to prevent escalation. A place to air grievances and be given a 
hearing from peers may lend to sorting out problems rapidly and with a 
perceived level of fairness from both sides. It may not, I'm suggesting 
it's worth a try though.

Best Regards,


More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list