Stepping down from the IRC team

[Melissa Draper]

On Sat, 2009-09-05 at 12:25 +0100, Dave Walker wrote:
> Joseph Price wrote:
> > 2009/9/4 Dave Walker <DaveWalker at ubuntu.com>:
> >  
> >>  I don't believe
> >> it is conducive at this stage to mention individual names, and/or
> >> actions.
> >>    
> >
> >  
> >> I believe first, that we need to recognise there is a negative
> >> issue, and not try to sweep it to one side.  Once we have recognised the
> >> issues within the team, we can then attempt to look at the causes of
> >> these and allow the discussion to flow as necessary.
> >>    
> >
> > I believe these two statements, (one following on from the other)
> conflict.
> >
> > Can we stop with wishywashyness and start calling people up on
> > actions? Talking about general feelings and trends months after the
> > fact won't help.
> >
> > We've got a lovely process to do so, which we've both referenced earlier.
> >
> > As I said in my previous email, please can we follow the dispute
> > resolution process to resolve issues?
> >
> > I haven't had anything from you to the irc-council inbox.
> >
> > This process is not new.
> >
> > You've raised the point that you don't like the new idling policy.
> > Yes, I too have seen some people leave that I don't want to disappear.
> > I hope they will stick in #ubuntu-irc though and utilise that channel
> > for general irc-ness. If you want to discuss this further, then cool!
> > Lets start a new thread, or add it to our next meeting agenda.
> >
> >  
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> I'm saddened you are of the opinion that the statements you quote are
> conflicting.  I had hoped my previous mails to this list made it
> somewhat obvious for my reasons to not point fingers at individuals.  I
> do not believe that this is a problem with the individual level, but
> rather a cultural issue, and in some ways an ethos that has built with
> time.  Further, pointing fingers at this stage could easily turn the
> thread into a "witchhunt", which I am keen to avoid.

I suspect the conflict that Joe is referring to is that the passages you
quote indicate that you wanting to have an issue acknowledged, but
without actually stating what the issue is.

For example, if I'm asked to do a favour but that favour is not
specified, I tend to ask what it is before committing -- that way I do
not commit to do something that I am unable to do. 

> Martin mentioned in one of his mails that he was unable to explicitly
> describe the issue, and I fully reognise his point.  It's not an issue
> that can be pinpointed easily with the one or two examples.  It has
> greater breadth, and I'm unsure how this could not have been noticed by
> others.

Which still means that we're left trying to understand what you are
talking about. 

> I do not believe my statements were "wishywashy", I was trying to avoid
> this.  So i apologise if that is the impression it conveyed.  Trends can
> only be formed following time, and it is largely based on feelings.  As
> I said in my previous email to the list, the people that have noticed
> this are not limited to one or two individuals.  As I believe the root
> of the cause to be cultural, rather than individual actions; it would be
> unfair, and non-reflective of the issues I am trying to raise by quoting
> multiple minor gripes.

It is the impression that was conveyed, as I've explained above.

Referring to the thing with the stuff is not really helpful. If you
cannot

> How many operators have been lost now, through either infighting or
> generic disagreements?

I suspect you will have to tell us, because the number I can place does
not match your panic.

In terms of volunteer group retention rates, the ops team has a rather
high one.

> You mentioned that there is a "lovely process".  This is really
> subjective, I'm not sure it is fit for purpose, in many scenarios.  I'm
> not aware of a situation where the Appeal / Dispute Resolution Process
> [0] has ever been proved to yield a good result.

It lead to the offtopic boundary rules being changed slightly (though it
was mostly wording), and we were under the impression that most people
were happy with this resolution. Is this not the case?

It has also lead to a ban being lifted just last week which should not
have been put in place to begin with as it was a ban based on actions in
another namespace. Was this a non-good result?

> As I've mentioned in my two previous emails to this list; I'm calling
> for an open calm debate.  I'm finding it increasingly frustrating that
> members of the IRC council would rather try and solve this issue in
> private emails to a closed list.  We are consistently seeing this or
> similar issues plaguing this team.  I believe the only way we can remedy
> this is by an open debate.

The appeals process does not limit everything to a private list.

> If you can provide a reason why having this discussion on a closed list
> at an individual level directed to 5 members of the IRC Council will
> provide a more enriched and useful outcome to having an open discussion
> amongst the whole team (and other subscribers to the "Ubuntu IRC issues
> discussion list") is more suitable, other than referring to the policy -
> I would be pleased to hear it, and happily abide by it.

The private list is there for the privacy of people who may wish to say
things they do not want recorded publicly for various genuine reasons.

The only reason the IRCC ML was brought up here in this thread, I
thought, was because Mez stated that he'd sent emails to it, but we have
no trace of them.

> At this stage, I believe it's possibly more constructive to try to
> establish the initial issues in email, rather than the real time nature
> of an IRC based meeting.  This allows people to put careful thought, and
> hopefully a fruitful discussion.  I'm not claiming to have a definitive
> list of the issues, or the resolutions.  What I am hoping to do, is
> cultivate people being able to present reasoned arguments in an open
> manner.  I'm aware this is a contentious issue, and I wish to avoid
> direct attacks.  For this reason, as I stated in my previous mail - I
> would like to see agreement that there is a negative issue surrounding
> the team, please can we either agree that there is, or provide a
> suggestion why myself, and many others believe this to be case?

Is this not constructive? I thought it was.

> I haven't sent emails to the irc-council regarding this thread, and
> considering that i'm of the opinion that an open debate is a better
> solution, I'm not sure how this would be advantageous.  It's important
> to note that members of the IRC council are equally members of Ubuntu
> IRC operators team, therefore it's reasonable to assume that they all
> will see this thread without the council being specifically included.
> 
> I'm not sure how creating a new thread will help remedy this issue, and
> therefore I'm happy to continue posting to this thread.  However, if you
> feel this will help then please do create a new one in your reply. 
> However, it would be appreciated if the points I have raised could be
> considered in a reply.

I did not think we were asking for a new thread on the IRCC list, but
rather making people aware of the appeals process.

The "new thread" comment seems to have been a specific discussion about
the reducing of the audience in #ubuntu-ops. It'd be worthwhile to keep
that specific topic separate from this far more ambiguous one so that it
does not get lost.

> I am not satisfied that comments from some fellow members in the
> #ubuntu-ops channel regarding this issue is constructive.  This morning
> there was a clear reference to either myself or Martin being refered to
> as both a "drama llama" and then a "Guanaco".  This is exactly the kind
> of comments and ridicule that I believe is limiting others willingness
> to get involved in this debate.

Friends and colleagues of mine use "drama llama" to refer to trouble
tickets, so it rather fits what Madpilot said. UD seems to be a lot more
negative though, so it probably wasn't the best thing that could have
been said if that's what's out there as the def -- if you consider UD to
be a reliable source, that is.

> This morning I had a private message
> from someone that hasn't been involved with this thread who wrote a
> reasoned reply, and decided not to send it as they felt it would (in
> their words) "fall on deaf ears".

This is a good example as to why the appeals process was highlighted. If
people do not follow it to make suggestions, we cannot know where to
start -- we cannot read minds.

We are listening, and we are responding, so I'm not sure how this fits
with your "deaf ears" thing.

> Whist desperately I want these issues put to bed; without actually
> resolving them, I fear we will inevitably see further disagreements, and
> leading to the team being dysfunctional and more operatives standing
> down.  This cannot be the optimum solution, as ultimately it's the
> Ubuntu community userbase that suffers.

And without actually clarifying what the issues are, we are not really
going to have much luck in tackling them.

Right now, the IRCC is feeling like we've been blindfolded, spun around,
and handed a tail on a tack. We're now asking for guidance so we have
some chance of hitting the donkey.

> [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IrcTeam/AppealProcess
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Dave Walker
> 
> 
-- 
Melissa Draper

w: http://meldraweb.com & http://geekosophical.net
p: +61 4 0472 2736