<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 01/02/11 12:09, Chris Oattes wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:687127D5-FB0B-4DDE-8AE6-2C7575F159A1@cjo20.net"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On 31 Jan 2011, at 15:31, Martin Meredith <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mez@ubuntu.com">mez@ubuntu.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> On 28/01/11 21:05, John Chiazzese wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1296248738.3527.4.camel@enterprize"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 20:42 +0000, Chris Oattes wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">+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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Firstly, the mail never hit my inbox regarding the first
draft, as explained in IRC.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm pretty sure this has appeared in multiple meeting
minutes, which should be sent to this list. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> 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.<br>
<br>
I quote:-<br>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Serif;
font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
14px; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><br>
<br>
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<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcTeam/Scope"
style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border-width: 0px;
font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-size:
12px; line-height: 1; font-family: inherit; text-align:
left; vertical-align: baseline; color: rgb(221, 72, 20);
text-decoration: none;">Core channels</a>.</span></span><br>
<br>
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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>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. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No.<br>
<br>
If they have no terms, and have abuse, they are bannable for that
reason<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>