Stepping down from the IRC team

[Dennis Kaarsemaker]

On za, 2009-09-05 at 20:20 +0100, Christopher Swift wrote:

> Regardless on whether or not this one operator, Seveas decided to step
> down for similar reasons or not, surely if 2 or more, in this case
> possibly 6, doesn't that really set off alarm bells in your head? So
> lets not nit-pick that one of the six retired for another reason or
> not if you know that several have already for a similar reason so
> work on a way to resolve such instances. 

Count me in on that list. The trigger for me to leave may have been that
one user, but reflecting on it after a long pause it really was the
stress and the continuous fighting and misunderstanding that broke me.
It is no surprise to me that that list is mostly 'older' (as in:
earlier) ops, we've all worn out.

Face it, IRC is a constant attention puller and will burn you down if
you try to be a good op. As a result you become a bad, grumpy op like I
became (And I have seen quite a few others burn down as well). You
become less and less rational about your actions and in the end you burn
down and quit with a bang. Paradoxically, I've often seen this process
go faster the more you care about the IRC community.

This doesn't necessarily mean Martin is a bad op, or that the IRC team
is doing a bad job (may be true though, have been out for a long while
so I won't comment). But having a constant flow of new people on the
team and others taking a break of a few months or maybe a year is
definitely a good thing and should be supported by the rest of the team.

IMNSHO Paul's suggestion about high turnover are a good start. I would
suggest IRCC members to be on the council for max. 1 year and then not
electable for the next year. For operators a (few) month(s) break each
year will probably also help regaining perspective and losing stress. It
sure worked for me, quitting IRC made me lose a lot of stress.

Some other things I think I/we did wrong at the time, again not sure
what the situation is now but as I'm chiming in I might as well add some
more chime/bikeshedding:

* We were not actively recruiting more operators. Given that operators 
  burn out, you need a constant stream of new ones. One of the reasons I
  held on for so (too) long was that there weren't many operators at
  certain times of day. I am sure the Australians among us can relate to
  that.
* 'No idling' in #ubuntu-ops. We created this rule to avoid trolling 
  in that channel. I think it is better to +m the channel and +v people 
  who actually come in with a question or are operators. That still 
  avoids trolling while being more welcoming. Given the type of 
  discussions that happen in #ubuntu-ops, I don't think that a 
  completely open channel will be possible
* (Not) questioning each other. One of the reasons I felt increasingly 
  uncomfortable in the team was that operators no longer supported each
  other in public. I definitely think that in public operators should
  support each others decision. If you want to question a decision, do
  so in private (an ops-only channel or PM). Also don't feel offended
  when being questioned (I definitely went wrong there many times). On 
  the other hand, some actions that I now consider wrong were never 
  questioned, neither in private nor in public even though some people
  were muttering. It is good to be more receptive to complaints.

Those are just my 2¢, which probably aren't worth much anymore as I left
in the worst way possible.

-- 
Dennis 'Seveas' Kaarsemaker -- who for some reason never left the IRC
mailinglist.