Proposal: Ubuntu Operator channel changes

[Matt Darcy]

On 07/11/10 17:47, Jussi Schultink wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I have been talking with a few people and mulling over this proposal
> for sometime now and I'd like to share it with you all now to get some
> outside feedback.
> 
> First, I want to list a few things that have prompted me and others to
> think about this:
> 
> I have seen complaints from some ops saying there needs to be a
> channel only for ops, where discussion, help and co-ordination between
> operators can go on.
> 
> I have seen people saying its too hard for ops outside the core
> channels to learn, interact and co-ordinate with ops from the core
> channels
> 
> I have seen complaints that there are different standards across the
> Ubuntu IRC namespace.
> 
> I have noticed that there are not enough people interested in becoming operators
> 
> There is more than this, but its not hitting my mind right now.
> 
> So, with these things in mind, Id like to propose the following IRC
> structure for our namespace:
> 
> #ubuntu-ops-collab (or similar named channel) This is the
> collaboration channel. It allows operators to talk in real-time about
> how to deal with situations, share information, and co-ordinate things
> across the namespace. this channel will be logged, with a delay (as
> #ubuntu-ops is now) CoC compliant (as all #ubuntu-* channels should
> be) and invite only for any operator in the namespace.
> 
> #ubuntu-ops - this is the resolution channel. It is no-idle for non
> ops, but its scope is extended across the namespace, for any chanop in
> an English language channel. It will not be compulsory for ops to idle
> there, but heavily encouraged. This channel allows people to have
> resolutions to issues done in a logged channel, making it simple and
> easy to reference.
> 
> #ubuntu-irc - this is the general Ubuntu IRC enquiries channel. for
> cloaks, help with irc, and other similar issues.
> 
> I think that these changes will help better unify our namespace, and
> bring new experience into the ops team and give better overall service
> to the namespace channels.
> 
> Do you think this would be beneficial? do you have any ideas that I
> might be missing?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jussi
> 
> (Written from me personally, not on behalf of the IRCC)


Jussi,

I feel another -ops channel that is logged is pointless, the whole issue
with the logging in -ops is that the people causing the issues, read the
logs and come back using it as way to target operators or loop holes.
The resolution channel should be logged, but a private discussion
channel for the operators to discuss issues with users, channels,
technical issues with operating, needs to not be monitored.

The same way the Ubuntu IRC council has a non-logged channel that
discussion goes on in, discussing issues and governance, the same is
true of the operator channel.

Having more people idle in -ops won't change the total lack of standards
across the name space, stopping users creating a channel randomly will,
at the moment we encourage users to make their own channels on a whim,
with no understanding of the implications, rules or requirements needed
to have a channel, this leads to one channel being strict on the topic
an the code of conduct, while another users foul language and is a
generic offtopic channel, despite it's topic being something such as
#ubuntu-kernel-userspace-patching.

Having a process to allow people to open their channels and operate
their channels will stop this, making it clear that if you open a
channel in the #ubuntu name, here are your requirements.

#ubuntu-irc - once again we find ourselves trying to find a use for this
channel, either use it, or dump it, we seem to review this channel on a
regular basis and try to define another reason for it to exist, it's
current layout seems to be functional, however maybe it's time to accept
it has no purpose.


that's my thoughts on it.

Matt



>