Follow-up from the IRCC meeting today at 18:00 UTC

[C de-Avillez]

Hello,

On today's IRCC meeting, during the "Any Other Business", we had a
brief chat started by Jussi (see below, logs also available online, at
the usual place). We decided to keep on by e-mail, IRC (-irc and/or
-ops-team). Jussi asked me to send out the e-mail.

Basically -- as I understand it -- there seems to be an imbalance/lack
of visibility/lack of clarity on what happens when there is a complaint
against an IRC op (of course, we are only considering the channels
under IRCC responsibility).

This e-mail is intended to start a discussion about that. Right now I
will not take any position (apart, of course, of what I already said on
IRC). 

Cheers,

..C..

Times are UTC.

2014-01-22 18:35:20     jussi   I was thinking about it - perhaps we should make it a bit clearer what actions are/can be taken against an operator by the IRCC, so that people who have a complaint can see that things dont just get swept under the carpet, but are actually dealt with properly.
2014-01-22 18:35:21     rww_elsewhere   target that channel * most of us can't op it *
2014-01-22 18:36:45     hggdh   jussi: don't we describe the possible actions against an abusive ops?
2014-01-22 18:36:50     rww_elsewhere   (sorry, lag. back to jussi)
2014-01-22 18:36:56     IdleOne jussi: what sort of actions did you have in mind?
2014-01-22 18:37:06     hggdh   or are we missing more visibility?
2014-01-22 18:37:06     AlanBell        jussi: "Appointing or recalling IRC operators or determining criteria by which they are appointed." is something we can do
2014-01-22 18:38:21     jussi   IdleOne: it could range from simply saying, ok, misdemeanor, youve a warning, to a time based disqualification from operating in that channel/all channels or complete removal of ops
2014-01-22 18:38:34     AlanBell        generally the aim is more towards conflict resolution rather than sanctions for operators
2014-01-22 18:38:58     rww_elsewhere   and conflict resolution is mostly internal to minimize drama, so we can't really demonstrate it publicly
2014-01-22 18:39:16     jussi   AlanBell: yes, I understand that, but by not having sanctions at all, mean that basically, not much happens if there is an issue, and there is no "paper trail"
2014-01-22 18:39:34     hggdh   but some sort of public resolution might be needed, I think
2014-01-22 18:40:32     IdleOne I'm not comfortable with listing possible sanctions to ops for the world to see. I think it would give problem users more ammunition to use.
2014-01-22 18:41:07     jussi   IdleOne: we list possible actions to users, why not to operators?
2014-01-22 18:41:10     rww_elsewhere   on the other hand, a lack of details is ammunition for them to use that we're a cabal
2014-01-22 18:41:11     AlanBell        yeah, I am not sure about the helpfulness of time based bans on operators
2014-01-22 18:41:22     hggdh   but we should at least acknowlege there are sanctions for ops
2014-01-22 18:41:34     IdleOne jussi, rww: both good points
2014-01-22 18:41:36     AlanBell        we have the sanction of removing operators, we can also overturn an operator decision
2014-01-22 18:42:05     AlanBell        both of which are rare but not totally unheard of
2014-01-22 18:42:11     rww_elsewhere   assuming those are both listed somewhere, perhaps add the sanction of temporarily suspending op privileges for ops that are burned out and acting problematically accordingly
2014-01-22 18:42:39     rww_elsewhere   not that we'd necessarily need it, but it might be a useful middle ground between those two
2014-01-22 18:42:46     hggdh   and, given a complaint, we should publicly announce its resolution (either as "dispute resolved between the parts", or as "declined", or as "whatever done")
2014-01-22 18:43:20     jussi   AlanBell: so what Im seeking is discussion on what could be some more detail/other things there, (if any at all).
2014-01-22 18:43:47     hggdh   I agree with AlanBell that an internal conflict resolution should not be made public; but some sort of public announcement should be done
2014-01-22 18:44:10     hggdh   may I propose we follow on that via email to the ML?
2014-01-22 18:44:16     jussi   yes, I dont think the details need to be made public either, that was not my point
2014-01-22 18:45:13     hggdh   jussi: yes, I follow you, and agree on at least announcing the result. This is fair.
2014-01-22 18:46:04     AlanBell        I think we need to look back at some examples, and what we might have announced under that principal
2014-01-22 18:46:34     AlanBell        so yeah, further discussion on the mailing list and in -irc and/or -ops-team would be good on this topic I think
2014-01-22 18:46:52     hggdh   agree. One of the points jussi brought up is we do not list how we can sanction ops, but we list how we can sanction users. Not balanced
2014-01-22 18:47:21     AlanBell        well we do, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/Charter
2014-01-22 18:47:25     AlanBell        it is just a short list :)
2014-01-22 18:48:11     hggdh   well, OK, I stand corrected :-)


-- 
ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/attachments/20140122/0f43bde0/attachment.pgp>