general attitude for -ops, how we are expected to behave

[Joseph Price]

Getting more active ops is a better solution in my opinion.

On 15 February 2010 07:42, Paul O'Malley - gnu's not unix -
<ompaul at eircom.net> wrote:
> Joseph Price wrote:
>> On 14 February 2010 10:56, Terence Simpson <tsimpson at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>> I know we are all human and we do make mistakes
>>> or have bad days.
>>
>> Indeed, we are all human. Just like all the other users.... yes we're users too!
>>
>> Assume the best.
>>
>>
>>> I'm not proposing that we are forced to be cheery all
>>> the time, and are fired out of a cannon when we fail. But we should all
>>> make an effort to be considerate and lead by example.
>>
>> If you don't want to spend the time dealing with situations, trying to
>> keep everyone happy, then don't. Let someone else do it.
>>
>> "Oh I don't have enough time" is no excuse to just banforward someone
>> before signing off. If you don't have the time to talk with someone,
>> leave it alone.
>>
>
>
> This is wrong, if you have not gotten the idea already, there is baiting
> and organised baiting, for instance I used to do some stuff on a
> Saturday morning early local time. I would be the only person there for
> a couple of hours. If your primary objective is not create a functional
>  support channel, then what is it?
>
>
> When you are on the way out why not do a
> "Mark usernam #Channel-wheretheywere" in #ubuntu-ops.
>
> Perhaps if it had been building over time then the -1 hour or -3 hours
> then that could be included.
>
> As others have the rights to remove bans set by another op. A cold light
> of day approach can be taken by reflecting on the logs at that time
>
> Anything else is burnout for people who are trying to keep channels
> functional.
> (No idea how I would know this.)
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>