Defining the core channels

[idleone]

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 17:19 +0200, Jussi Schultink wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Juha Siltala <juha at siltala.net>
> wrote:
>         On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 10:30 -0400, idleone wrote: 
>         > A core channel to me would be any channel that has a clear and definite
>         > goal. Team channels such as #ubuntu-women-project or #ubuntu-learning
>         > would be good examples. #ubuntu is also, in my mind at least, a core
>         > channel. As for -offtopic* channels I don't think they can be considered
>         > "core" channels as they tend to be more about relaxing and socialising
>         > although still very important to the community because they do give us a
>         > chance to get to know each other.
>         
>         
>         Please have a look at
>         https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/ChannelList , which (hopefully)
>         lists all our channels. Your suggestion would make all of them
>         "core channels", save the few explicitly offtopic channels.
>         I'm afraid we would have a hard time managing the resulting
>         workload. :-)
>         
>         Also note that being "core" is not connected to being
>         "important", as stated in my original message.
>         
>         I think, and I may be wrong, that we do have an idea of what
>         the core channels should be (and that they pretty much are
>         already listed in the Scope wiki page). We're not looking to
>         change this vague idea but define it. New channels may,
>         however, be required at some point in the future (of which we
>         know little about!) and a clear definition would be useful at
>         that point.
>         
> 
The channels I used were meant as examples. I am certain there are many
good candidates for "core channel". As for a definition I think that I
sort of touched on it a little bit.

 "any channel that has a clear and definite goal" related to Ubuntu and
it's official derivatives.

P.S. all core channels should be publicly logged channels also.



> 
> As I remember it, the previous IRC Council's thought about core
> channels was the direct support channels and their corresponding
> -offtopics and -devels for ubuntu, its Officially supported
> derivatives and recognized derivatives, as shown on this
> page: http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu/derivatives . There
> was a provision to add also other busy channels within the #ubuntu-*
> namespace, as the IRCC saw fit. 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying this must be the way its done, but I think that it
> provides a good basic framework. 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jussi.
>         
>         Cheers,
>         
>         Juha
>         
>         --
>         Ubuntu-irc mailing list
>         Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
>         https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>         
> 

-- 
John Chiazzese

In this concrete jungle we live. Our survival is love that we give. 
Now my instinct is guiding my way. It’s true what they say.
The world is your chance to create.