Proposal: Ubuntu Operator channel changes

[Charlie Kravetz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 19:47:16 +0200
Jussi Schultink <jussi01 at ubuntu.com> 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)
> 

Guess I will throw my 2 cents in for what's it is worth. 

Having watched the actions in #ubuntu-ops and #ubuntu-irc, I believe
having all dispute and ban resolution taking place in a single channel
would be a good thing. As it is now, some bans are discussed in each
channel. This does not seem like a good situation for the users.
Rather, it leads to confusion at times.

As for a separate channel for operators to discuss issues between
themselves, I do not logging those discussions should be needed. At
some point, transparency becomes bad, for lack of the right word. These
ops discussions do not need to be available for the users to grab and
pick apart. However, if it is possible to create private logs of those
discussions, it should be okay. On the other hand, it should be stated
in the topic and periodic reminders sent out that the channel will
conform to the CoC and Ubuntu IRC Guidelines. Not logging can mean
free-for- all. 



- -- 
Charlie Kravetz 
Linux Registered User Number 425914          [http://counter.li.org/]
Never let anyone steal your DREAM.           [http://keepingdreams.com]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM1xUFAAoJEFNEIRz9dxbAkvwH/3ET3JPoptTeOd7mRNXBBEI9
/wKnuQX3wEySHPpl1hpB3fyfmuqROJy5wVDUVCcHNFaqoUMB+9jzjIwCkdbduFNk
CHcMSyUUF4PlCxCZJX0PnLfxSq/X/Di6KARoUhXdDdh1XMmcZb8DGaxe9Z3mnpYX
2ee2cWCI6hJtlPW3vM/amU6F6PIYDuNIPOdYczBNWv1MMGFS5u9Cd+pR0igUNZWX
exQbHmheaH7dVKMXr+L6t5lf1rbj9ulAIOS+1o5TZyjx5vMhCPZ5Y1GUEihaaUbQ
iQ2LwnH4dFuZD+URXknMcu6dq/6tGxy8EntP1JCfb8lTs9/8Zkt0DHfvthl8VRE=
=1X90
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----