Shell policy approved

[Chris Oattes]

On 31 Jan 2011, at 15:31, Martin Meredith <mez at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> On 28/01/11 21:05, John Chiazzese wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 20:42 +0000, Chris Oattes wrote:
>>> Surely the time to object is during the 2 month period when it existed as a draft on the wiki. Ikonia has been campaigning for this for far longer, and it has been on several IRCC agendas before it was put up for a draft. 
>>> 
>>> Seeker
>>> 
>> +1
>> I agree with Seeker on this. Little late now to object, there was more
>> then enough time to attend meetings and state your concerns.
>> 
>> I don't see anywhere in the policy that states the ops team is going to
>> be actively seeking out shell providers to be banned. IF there is a
>> noticeable and constant abuse from users of the shell provider then
>> measures will be taken.
> 
> Firstly, the mail never hit my inbox regarding the first draft, as explained in IRC.

I'm pretty sure this has appeared in multiple meeting minutes, which should be sent to this list. 


>  Secondly, it doesn't state that they will actively be seeking out, but DOES give them the power to use that as an excuse should they, for example, take a disliking to someone.
> 
> I quote:-
> 
> 
> Any host or network provider that has no Terms of Use policy, has a policy that is incompatible with the Ubuntu IRC guidelines, or shows it is open for persistent abuse may be denied access to the Ubuntu IRC Core channels.
> 
> This is in the pre-amble.  The use of "or" rather than "and" with regards to abuse, and the "may be denied" (permissive, rather than subjective) allows any op, should they feel like it - to ban someone they take a disliking to.

If you are going to be pedantic about semantics, an "and" condition would mean that if someone has terms of use which are compatible with IRC guidelines but still allows persistent abuse would not be able to be banned under this document. ( "A and B" is only true if and only if both A and B are true). Logically, "or" is correct in this instance. 

"may" gives leeway for decisions to be made in either direction - would you prefer "must", which isn't subjective at all?

As stated by others, this decision would also have to be passed on to the IRCC, so a single op couldn't ban you for this reason. 

Now stop being so paranoid :P

Seeker'
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20110201/60e780f0/attachment.html>