Defining the core channels

[Juha Siltala]

On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 15:42 -0700, Robert Wall wrote:

> 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 :)


Whether or not IRCC members should be operators on channels might be a
good subject for another discussion, although it is not relevant for
this one. I have not had problems with it, and I suppose as long as the
Council is big enough, a member that is involved in a dispute can
abstain from dealing with such an issue.

IRCC members currently have the option to drop operator duties while
they are serving on the Council, and I think it is enough. Matters of
bias are also taken seriously: you're not going to catalyse a flamewar
you're an active participant in. We should be able to trust that Council
members can manage their own conduct, or there is a larger problem, and
if not, the the other Council members will notify them. :)

Juha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20100317/e9a53746/attachment.html>