#ubuntu-ops policy discussion

[Joseph Price]

On 2 February 2010 09:31, Juha Siltala <juha at siltala.net> wrote:
> In short, I would like to see what exactly is wrong with the current policy
> described above.
>
> Pricey says we've been told that it does not work, and that he agrees. This
> is not a very strong argument in itself and should be elaborated a little
> more clearly. How is #ubuntu-ops broken? We do get issues solved. No doubt
> we can do our jobs better as ops and improve our negotiating or helping
> skills, but how is changing channel policy going to improve our personal
> skill?

To address purely its role as a part in our current dispute resolution
process, it isn't friendly, from the overwhelming number of operators
present, to the enforcement of "rules" like the no-idling policy which
make people feel very unwelcome.

It just isn't a good atmosphere for resolving issues.

> There is a call for handling more issues in /queries instead of the channel.
> We can talk certainly talk about that, but I don't see how it's related to
> the no-idle policy. For the record, most of us already do use /queries
> extensively, and move the discussion to the -ops as required, usually after
> failing in query. We can agree to increase (or decrease) query use, but
> there is no data on the amount of queries vs. channel discussions so I can't
> really say how we're going to track progress.

http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/01/27/%23ubuntu-ops.html is my case in
point. Sorry its you jussi, but it could be most of you guys in -ops.

eagles joined the channel and politely requested his case be
"reconsidered". (His choice of wording.) In my opinion, he was
extremely polite and was trying to engage us in a positive manner.
Sure... he did embellish, whether purposefully or not. Everyone does
sometimes. Lets move on.

This is NOT how I believe catalysing works! That kind of behaviour,
using access to -ops and its no-idling policy as a *tool* to end
discussion won't fix problems.

What I would like to hear about is how someone has been engaging
eagles and talking with him, getting comfortable with them, sorting
issues out, answering questions, moving forward.

To repeat my main point... I do not like how this policy has been used
as a tool, by default.


> As for Pricey's request that we should stop using -ops for "group-led
> dispute resolution", we don't. We are not supposed to jump into discussions
> between an operator and an user without a very good reason. Any such
> incident is a bug, it should not happen. No policy change is required for
> that. To make this clear, one operator is supposed to handle each discussion
> already.

With the best of intentions, I jumped into the fray in my example
above. Bad Pricey. Perhaps I should have talked to jussi privately? I
could just have easily been on jussi's "side" however... it does
happen.


> A separate, open discussion channel has been suggested. What exactly would
> we discuss there? Users can already join -ops and ask questions.

Agreed... its just more bureaucracy, rules and regulations that nobody
but the ops care about.

> On the
> other hand, a separate, private discussion channel has also been discussed.
> We can create such channels any time, and if there's a need, we will open
> and close them as needed. Do we need the IRCC to tell us that yes, we can do
> that?

When I suggested this, I wanted to emphasize that the IRCC should
maintain that channel, keep it a positive channel. Promote useful
discussions 'within friends'. I know that the ops have their private
channels and PMs, but I believe it would be useful for the IRCC to try
and keep these thoughts positive & together, behind closed doors if
needed.