Defining the core channels

[idleone]

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:42 -0700, Robert Wall wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 03/16/2010 03:15 PM, Michael Lustfield wrote:
> >> Why not? the core channels would be official channels where official
> >> Ubuntu community business is conducted. Channels such as #ubuntu
> >> ( already logged ) do have many user who read the logs for whatever
> >> reason.
> > 
> > I always thought public logs in these channels helped because the users
> > and ops knew that a dispute could be resolved by somebody else looking
> > at the logs - as opposed to "he said, she said." I know better now.
> > Either way, I think the logging is a good idea.
> 
> Plenty of ops (and the bantracker itself, in some cases) have logs of
> the core channels. I can't think of a time that there's been a dispute
> over whether an op was lying about what a user said. Since there are at
> least two IRC Council members in #ubuntu-offtopic (for example) right
> now, I don't think such an argument would get very far :)
> 
> >> channels like -offtopic don't need to be logged because they are social
> >> channels and as such not much official business is conducted in them if
> >> any.
> > 
> > I always thought this channel wasn't logged because of the utter crap
> > that spews form it. Heck, public logging is prohibited for this reason
> > afaik.
> 
> Since it appears from my logs that you visit #ubuntu-offtopic
> occasionally, and have asked for and received help from there on more
> than one occasion, your characterization of it as "utter crap" is
> perhaps uncalled for.
> 
> The reason (according to ops that I've asked about this) that it and
> other offtopic channels aren't logged is because it's a social channel,
> and thus informal, and taking social discussions and archiving them
> forever on a public website indexed by search engines would be odd and
> unnecessary.
> 
> Compare that to #ubuntu, where conversations are (generally) more formal
> in nature, and someone searching on a search engine for the answer to a
> problem could theoretically find it in channel logs.
> 
> Anyway. I don't personally think that stipulating that core channels
> must be logged is a good idea, especially considering that several
> current core channels aren't, so it obviously wasn't part of the
> existing informal selection criteria.

You are assuming that the existing list of core channels will remain the
same and that they will all be included in the core channel list.

I think that by defining the term core channel it implies that the
current core channels need to be reviewed and that if by the definition
that is agreed upon those channels still fit then they should be
included, otherwise they should be removed from core channel status.

Please don't get me wrong, I am in several channels that are Ubuntu
related but that does not mean I think they all fit into a "core"
channel definition. 

Also, just because the current core channels have this status does not
mean they should be Grand Fathered into the new definition.

> 
> ~ rww
> 
> - -- 
> Robert Wall <robertwall at ubuntu.com>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RobertWall | PGP: 2048R/93755E08
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLoAlnAAoJELZQE6STdV4IPpAH/2jdcVqCHcndy0cw+uyzr1VP
> TkRFZ2uXJyxtC9ftb/mnLlw+gDJBHLQ1WRtdKFUTS/B60bhzKcQzcXeksj5ZcDK0
> eSyKPm24kwfPuvNPx6x3B/J5VCmWkxEvaTT27//EDPwg2waugzzzczDxhS0GErZ9
> g163+O2aDkhtTYKlBM5D4w8e3E4OiT3a/MxlHYX1y0EdtR6dem9etP4cqJI1For4
> 8/TdaCFzDkLpVm8TMyBUn/y6w/xNZ6R6l2H4S9IYstVCq5kQ9PwKRHZa4VgaoPzO
> hDG37ckxIG65EQzhbc7XmXSPEbnwYfdrHL+pttcuvcUmnsp5mvxibnFqJMuE+0Y=
> =CULs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 

-- 
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.