Proposal: Ubuntu Operator channel changes

[IdleOne]

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 18:01 +0000, Matt Darcy wrote:
> 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.
> 
I think the discussions with users should be held in the logged channel
at all times. PM are acceptable but only when it involves preempting a
op action to be taken on the user. Once the action, removal/ban has been
taken any further discussion with that user should be logged in the -ops
channel.

I also think that there should be a separate and private/invite only
(not logged) channel for the operator team. I am not going to even get
into the whole channel op/core-op thing. if you op in #ubuntu or
#kubuntu or #xubuntu etc. a channel for all the ops to talk privately
about a potential risk to any of our channels is needed. Like Matt
pointed out those users read the logs and then use them against us.

IdleOne.


> 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
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> 
>