Shell policy approved

[Jussi Schultink]

Hi All!

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Meredith <mez at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>  On 01/02/11 12:09, Chris Oattes wrote:
>
>
>  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<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.
>

While this discussion is interesting and all, its still not overly helpful -
if you have a problem with the wording, we would love to see alternate
wording suggestions! Please, this is somewhere you can help out, and
contribute. Lets see some suggestions about how to fix it, alternate
wordings instead of just complaining.

Cheers

Jussi.

>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-irc mailing list
> Ubuntu-irc at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-irc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20110202/cd7dafc0/attachment.html>