Shell policy approved

Martin Meredith mez at ubuntu.com
Wed Feb 2 11:50:30 UTC 2011


On 01/02/11 12:09, Chris Oattes wrote:
>
> On 31 Jan 2011, at 15:31, Martin Meredith <mez at ubuntu.com 
> <mailto: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 
>> IRCCore channels <https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope>.
>>
>> 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.

No.

If they have no terms, and have abuse, they are bannable for that reason

Other than that, (say, having terms, and having consistent abuse) means 
they're not bannable under this rule.  Which makes sense, as the way to 
remove the ban is to put the terms up... which they already have, 
therefore can have the ban lifted immediately.  If abuse is coming from 
a shell provider, and it's got terms to deal with abuse - this doesn't 
cover it.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20110202/e5e8030f/attachment.html>


More information about the Ubuntu-irc mailing list