Changes to guidelines needed for irc council approval

[Joseph Price]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Troup <james.troup at ubuntu.com>
Date: 18-Jul-2007 00:07
Subject: Re: IRC Council
To: Joseph Price <pricechild at ubuntu.com>
Cc: community-council at lists.ubuntu.com

> Anyway, for clarity, let me emphasise what I was asking for.

>> AFAICS, the operator guidelines still don't explicitly discourage
>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> counter-attack or specify freenode staff as the correct/only
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> escalation point beyond a ban or k-line.
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*snip*

> The only reason we're having this discussion is because a previous
> incident involving Ubuntu IRCops has demonstrated that the existing
> guidelines, de facto, are not sufficient.

>> Several of us also feel something so blatant as "please don't attack
>> users and steer clear of illegal activities" wouldn't be in keeping
>> with the tone and nature of our guidelines.

> I'm sorry you feel that way, but as above, there are existing examples
> that show that, IMO, it IS necessary and I'm really struggling to
> understand why there's such resistance to the idea of being explicit
> about it. (And this isn't the first time either, this is pretty much
> the reaction we got last time too)

So we need an addition to the operator guidelines and its open for
discussion. I'm suggesting something like:
"Try not to let problems spread to other channels (other than
#ubuntu-ops perhaps), and please remember that above using your
access, freenode staff are the last method of escalation."
be added to the 'ban on sight' section of
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/OperatorGuidelines

Please improve, discuss etc. :)

Pricey