Attack at the council

Cliff Wade hawkwind at
Mon Dec 18 19:52:11 UTC 2006

On 12/18/06, John Vivirito <gnomefreak at> wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> > 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,
> >
> > anto9us
> Thats where the CC gets involved they are unbiased and they handle these
> debates thats what theya re there for.

I was under the impression that we want very little if nothing at all
actually going to the CC ? I've not explicity heard anyone state this,
but why would we ever really *want* things to go to the CC ?
Certainly they have much better things to worry about than something
like this.

I personally, though I know very little about the CC, don't think
having things like this brought to them is the right thing.  It's kind
of liking working in a retail store and having an upset customer jump
over the head of your store manager, district manager and go directly
to corporate office.  That's just one thing that you never want to see
happen as it almost always never results in a good outcome except for
the customer because as we all know in this example, the customer is
always right when it comes to retail related jobs.

With kind regards,

Cliff Wade (Hawkwind)
Registered Linux User #362532 Registered Kubuntu User #331
IRC Channels ( #LFD #Kubuntu #Ulteo

More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list