#ubuntu-ops policy discussion

Lasse Havelund lhavelund at ubuntu.com
Tue Feb 2 15:16:22 UTC 2010

Hash: SHA1

The situation with jussi01 described is a very unfortunate one, and not
a very good example of catalysing. As much as it's an unfortunate
situation, we all make mistakes. This isn't an attempt to justify
Jussi's actions, but

As for the two cases with ikonia -- I see no misconduct. Yes, it could
have been reasonable to speak to JayCool in a /query first, and yes, it
would have been reasonable to avoid the affair with mkanyicy77 and a
three-on-one smackfest.

That said, the conversation was running stale, and input from a
third-party operator is sometimes the only way to break free of that.

			    Anyway ...

Catalysing should always be the first approach made by any operator.
Regardless of situation. And regardless of whether we decide on a new
channel structure, or set of rules for -ops.

I've found myself bookmarking the catalyst guidelines[1] for easy access.

[1] http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml

- -- 
  .----.-.     Lasse Havelund
 /    ( o \    Official Ubuntu Member
'|  __ ` ||    lhavelund at ubuntu.com
 |||  ||| -'   +45 6021 3890

On 02/02/2010 15:00, Joseph Price wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 13:44, Joseph Price <pricechild at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Just reading up today's logs... and two more great examples where I
> don't think anything productive was gained...
> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2010/02/02/%23ubuntu-ops.html
> Both of these are initiated by ikonia.
> I believe ikonia should have tried to engage JayCool in /query first.
> Judging by the text there it didn't happen. I also see a claim of "3
> kicks".... really... 3 kicks? That'll only aggravate the situation, if
> you really need to stop someone participating in the channel, try
> talking with them first, and then mute.
> With the mkanyicy77, note Pici joining in the discussion. Then elky.
> THIS is -ops ganging up against users. Its not needed, it didn't need
> to be in -ops. Ikonia should have dealt with the guy in a better way,
> outside the channel and then reported the result into -ops to let
> people know what was going on. Perhaps he should have even tried to
> engage the person first & reported in -ops before the kick.
>  Unfortunately I don't see the end of that conversation.
> I don't have the full details on either of these issues, however
> judging by the script, it seems that the users were kicked (several
> times?) with in my opinion, not enough effort to engage them
> beforehand. I don't think this is as good as we can be.
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list