Shell policy approved

[John Chiazzese]

On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 15:31 +0000, Martin Meredith 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.  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.

QUOTE
Note to Ubuntu IRC operators
If you set a ban on a shell or network provider, a detailed note in the
bantracker must be placed against the ban explaining the requirements
that are not met. In addition, inform the IRC Council about your action
immediately.
ENDQUOTE

It is not without peer review. The IRCC reserves the right to override
an ops decision to set such a ban.

I would discuss it with my fellow ops before setting a ban of this
nature and would make sure it is the right step. I am almost 100%
certain the rest of the team would do the same.

IdleOne