Ubuntu ops Co-ordination channel

[Martin Meredith]

On 24/02/11 18:41, rww wrote:
> (Apologies in advance if my line formatting turns out horribly; I'm
> wrestling with my computer today.)
>
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:00:54PM -0500, John Chiazzese wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 15:07 +0200, Jussi Schultink wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> This morning in #ubuntu-ops we had a discussion about saying things
>>> which may be responses to baiting, or may actually bait the trolls
>>> themselves. Given that we are seeing an increase in trolls making
>>> complaints about operators pushing them to the limit by what has been
>>> said in #ubuntu-ops, and trolls reading #ubuntu-ops backlog just to
>>> see if they get a response to their trolling, I would like to again
>>> propose a co-ordination channel for the purpose of these discussions.
>>>
>>> This channel would be for all those who are +v'd in #ubuntu-ops, as
>>> well as relevent others as decided by the Ubuntu IRC Council. (this
>>> would make it possible to have ops from large loco channels and other
>>> channels with frequent problems included).
>>> It would need to be a CoC compliant channel (as per all Ubuntu IRC
>>> Channels) and would be privately logged for IRCC and CC viewing, in
>>> the case of dispute or accusation of impropriety. The channel would
>>> make it easier for channel operators to be prepared in-case of an
>>> attack or channel hopping troll.
>>>
>>> I hope all of this makes sense and I would really appreciate your
>>> thoughts on this. I am CC'ing the Community Council into this
>>> discussion, as it may be helpful to have their input here also.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Jussi Schultink
> I agree that we need a channel for frank discussion of current op
> issues that is not publicly logged. As has been said in the past by
> others, part of the stress of opping is that (excepting PMs) we
> constantly have spectators looking for something with which to find
> fault. I've been in the same situation in other environments, and it
> leads to obsessively checking everything one says to make sure that
> problem users can't use anything against one, which needless to say
> chills communication.
Surely your "No idlers or we kick you" rule takes care of this?