#ubuntu-ops policy discussion

Jussi Schultink jussi01 at gmail.com
Mon Feb 1 18:53:00 UTC 2010

Hi all,

I appreciate the need for openness and people to be able to see what is
going on in #ubuntu-ops in realtime. I also appreciate that there is perhaps
a sense of elitism, or at least a perceived elitism. Now I don't think that
any of the suggested solutions are perfect far from it, so we will need to
find some way of going forward. However, what I really would not like to see
is an open free for all - this simply does not work.

As for the suggestion that ops are not accessible enough, which I beleive
contributes to the sense of elitism, we have been working to create the
#ubuntu-irc-helpers channel, which is a place for the helpers as well as the
ops, to learn, build each other up, talk about situations etc in the support
channels. I very much see #ubuntu-ops as a dispute resolution channel, for
bans and such.

For most irc management issues, bots and the like, we already have
#ubuntu-irc and #ubuntu-bots-team etc.

Now there is still the issue of realtime access to #ubuntu-ops - the logs
are somewhat delayed (1 hour perhaps? can't really remember) whch does not
help those who are operators in non core irc channels, or even those who
would just idle there to learn or so. This issue could easily be solved in
one of 2 ways.

1. Have #ubuntu-ops open to all,  set #ubuntu-ops +mz and have the operators
auto opped. This allows the ops to see all the conversations, but the person
bringing the issue only his talking and the ops. Thus, this allows many
people in the channel, to observe and even offer suggestions to the
operators, without disturbing the mediation that is going on.

2. Have #ubuntu-ops remain the way it currently is, and add a "mirror"
channel, which echoes all what is said in #ubuntu-ops and allow people to
idle in it. This gives a good clear view of what happens in #ubuntu-ops, and
allows mediation to proceed undisturbed.

These are the ways I would be happy to see it done, and I'm very interested
to hear others thoughts on doing it this way.



On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Joseph Price <pricechild at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> As i tried (and i think failed) to explain at the meeting, i think a
> lot of stuff that happens in -ops doesn't need to happen there.
> Here:s a proposed plan of action from me..
> 1. Work with other users in /query as much as possible. - e.g. Don't
> kickbanforward users to -ops to deal with them there immediately. We
> want to try and keep things running as smoothly as possible and
> disrupt as few as possible.
> 2. Get a private, non-logged discussion channel for ops. You don't
> need to publically log your 'private messages'. Nobody should expect
> everything to be public. Get a channel people know exists.
> Transparency only needs to go so far. Talk about stuff there when
> advice etc is needed. Talk about currently happenning situations. Just
> be prepared to (publically) justify any public actions you make based
> on what is discussed there.. That's where we get transparency.
> 3. Open up -ops. Use it as a place where ops can be found. Use it to
> talk with users. Random chatter. Socialising, though encourage
> discussions on best practice etc. Engage the community!
> 4. Stop using -ops for group led dispute resolution. It is Too many
> people. Too many people on 'the opposing side'. If you feel you want
> to create a group discussion with a user, ask if that's ok with them,
> use a temporary channel. Its much less intimidating and there's noone
> to disrupt it.
> 5. Get decisions made. Of course there are some people we don't want
> to entertain.
> I hope that that is a suitable proposal that will satisfy the wants of
> both those for or against the current policy.
> From my n95 on the train so sorry if anything doesn't make immediate sense.
> On 2/1/10, idleone <oneidle at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:16 +0200, Juha Siltala wrote:
> >> Greetings fellow IRCers,
> >>
> >> In yesterday's IRC Council meeting[1], we discussed the item of
> >> #ubuntu-ops policies including 'no-idling' and +v. The no-idle policy
> >> generated a lengthly discussion and we decided to postpone the item
> >> until the next meeting and ask for community feedback.
> >>
> >> According to the current policy, we allow no idling on the channel by
> >> non-operators. Users should only visit the channel when they have
> >> outstanding issues that require operator assistance. The purpose of
> >> this policy is to ensure that ops and users can work out any issues
> >> without spectators or intrusions by those not directly involved. It
> >> also allows ops to quickly recognize anyone in need of assistance by
> >> noticing that they are not voiced. Transparency is achieved by having
> >> channel logs[2] publicly available.
> >>
> >> Some discussants were not happy with the current level of
> >> transparency, and offered suggestions as to how to handle an open
> >> channel:
> >>       * allow open discussion on the channel, handle distractions on a
> >>         case-by-case basis
> >>       * allow anyone to join and idle, moderate the channel and figure
> >>         out a way to voice those needing voice
> >>       * allow interested parties or monitors to join under strict
> >>         moderation
> >>       * two channels: issue management channel and a general
> >>         discussion channel
> >>       * two channels: the current -ops channel, and an open, moderated
> >>         mirror channel where all discussion on -ops is relayed
> >> Naturally, one option is to keep the current policy, which continues
> >> to stand for the time being. The Council would like some feedback on
> >> potential benefits of opening up the channel more, and on how to
> >> achieve it in practice.
> >>
> >> For a full picture, please review the meeting log. The issue is the
> >> first item of the meeting.
> >>
> >> [1] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/01/31/%23ubuntu-meeting.html
> >> [2] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/
> >>
> >> Thanks for any feedback and advice,
> >> --
> >> Juha Siltala
> >
> > My two cents,
> >
> > I prefer *allow interested parties or monitors to join under strict
> > moderation. I think this would be the best solution.
> >
> > As for what can a person learn from lurking/idling in -ops? The lurker
> > would benefit from watching the ops deal with problem users ( How to
> > Catalyse! )
> >
> >  Let's not forget the users who join -ops are usually there because they
> > have been banned for unacceptable behavior in the first place. They were
> > not "shy" or "embarrassed" when they spammed or flooded etc. in #*buntu
> > so why should they get the benefit of privacy when challenging a
> > decision made by the op?
> >
> > The users who join because they have a legitimate question about the
> > rules and need clarification in my opinion would not feel any
> > embarrassment
> >
> > Just my two cents,
> >
> > John Chiazzese
> > IdleOne
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> > Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
> >
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20100201/026fdc92/attachment.html>

More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list