IRC Issues [From Stepping Down]

[Lasse Havelund]

> I also think any resolutions to these issues should be documented. This
> could allow us to have a precedence for further issues. We already have
> a list for how operators should behave. This could be just an addition.
> I could set up a nice page for this that would have categories for
> resolved, not resolved, and being resolved. Just like how the BBB works
> except in a public manner. Of course some of these issues will need to
> move to IRCC for a multitude of reasons. It would still be nice if a
> generic result could move to this.
I think we need to be careful about creating a list with instruction on
exactly how to deal with a problem. In my experience, most of them are
better dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Guidelines I can see the idea of,
but actually creating an 'answer booklet' is not the way to go. Let the
person dealing with the issue handle it - after all, there is a reason we
were appointed ops in the first place.


> One interesting thing I learned from my segway into Gentoo (which was
> really fun) is how they handle bad language. They define bad language
> as ${EXPLETIVE}. This includes "hell" as well as other words that are
> generally considered acceptable unless overused. They follow a pretty
> specific policy. If it falls into this category, there's warn, ban, ban
> long time. They don't draw a grey line. It either is, or it isn't. This
> is a policy that I feel we should adopt. Perhaps not at the 'long time'
> length they hand out however.

Absolutely not a good idea. I'm going to have to say I agree entirely with
Lorenzo on this one.

/Lasse Havelund [MenZa]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20091002/f11938f1/attachment.html>