Meeting Summary ( longish)

[Peter Garrett]

[An attempt at a summary of the recent meeting - quite a lot happened, so
iyou may wish to read the logs as well.]

Meeting held a 18:00 UTC , Wed 20th December 2006
Agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcOperatorMeetingAgenda

Seveas chairing.

Points Discussed:
*************************************************************************

* Bots
*******

Apokryphos suggested that there should be some trusted people who can have
admin privileges to ubotu and ubugtu for functions like reconnect, death
etc
Seveas said that he has been digging in the code to give specific access,
but that shell access is required and this is not an option . He suggested
that for factoids it should be possible to set up an easy-to-deploy backup
on a different server.
Seveas suggested that the @reconnect issue be filed as a bug.

* Bantracker Logs
******************

There was general agreement that bantracker logs should be made public,
but that comments should not. There were some dissenting voices, but it
was eventually agreed that for the sake of transparency comments should
also be public. The logs would be read-only for the public.

* Channel Access Policy
***********************

Seveas suggested that we need administrative contacts for #kubuntu-* ,
#xubuntu-* #ubuntuforums-*
Nalioth pointed out that these contacts should be conversant with Ubuntu
IRC guidelines and policies. One suggestion was that this should be
discussed on the mailing list, and that people could step forward if
interested, or be nominated and accept or reject nomination.

This was then deferred to the mailing list.

* #ubuntu-ops
***************

There seemed to be general consensus that #ubuntu-ops should be open.

Seveas suggested that "ubugtu" could have a function to broadcast sensitive
information to all ops

It was agreed that the channel logs should be public.

It was agreed that "If someone appeals in #ubuntu-ops, the banning op is
not allowed to act, only to defend his actions"

LjL suggested a 30 day trial.
Seveas pointed out that none of the determinations of the meeting were set
in stone, and that things needed to be tried and reviewed according to
their success or failure.

* "Op-Wars/ Fun Kicking"
************************

Seveas asked whether we should allow "op wars/fun kicking". LjL suggested
they be allowed in -offtopic channels, but not in the main channels.
Gnomefreak pointed out that there had been complaints about it in
-offtopic channels, and that some people found it intimidating. There was
some division of opinion on this subject.

Seveas suggested that people will always find things to complain about,
and brought the topic to a close by asking people to add their comments on
the subject to the wiki page, since there was no broad agreement, and
revisiting the issue later.

* kick/ban/abuse/appeal policy
****************************

This issue created some spirited debate, with some in favour of more
specific policies and guidelines, and others arguing for ops having
discretion to decide on a case by  case basis.

The question of public arguments about decisions between ops was also
polarised between those who felt that it made the ops team look divided,
and those who felt that disagreement was a matter of principle that could
not be avoided.

It was generally agreed that the ops team should work on solidarity, and
that there needs to be regular communication. There was agreement that
regular meetings need to be held.

There was also discussion of the role of the council, and Seveas pointed
out that we now had a vacancy owing to the departure of ompaul. Several
people said that they had spoken with ompaul, and the meeting agreed that
should he decide to return, he would be welcomed back.

There was some discussion of the role of the council, its composition and
how cloaks are approved, including a suggestion that there should be a "no
ops" council, which was not agreed to.

Apokryphos asked if there were other issues, and Thoreauputic suggested we
might consider having mentors for new ops. It was agreed that this should
be sent to the list for discussion.