VoteBot in Tx channel

matthew byers faintstlsaint at
Sun Dec 20 14:53:54 GMT 2009

Thank you for the response,
You make some valid points but i just dont see how changing the meeting
venue is going to solve them all!
I would like to address a few things in it.
 1)True irc does not log itself, by default but we already have personnel
who have volunteer to log and convert over to wiki format for the channel.
2.) This too can be solved through the use of either mailing list or casting
your vote before the meeting happens. We have agendas up that show all
topics for voting. (Granted i understand that this is not always the best
answer so i can see it being a problem at times!!)
3.) That is not true about only admins being able to vote...ANYONE can vote.
For instance if we were to add a bot. Yes there would be three admins
strictly for control of the bot meaning setting topics, starting and closing
votes and stuff of that sort. Being a admin over the bot does not give us
super above all 'im better than everyone else' rights in the channel. We are
just here to maintain votebot. And there is no extensive pre-requiste for
handling a bot. (Perl)

Also yes irc is still chat and yes it is unsecure but that wouldnt change
somone getting multiple wave accounts just to cast votes in the same manner.

Now if meeting times is an issue than i dont see how changing the meeting
venue is going to solve the problem of people not being able to attend. If
the meeting is sunday at 8pm in IRC and you cant make it well just because
its sunday 8pm in WAVE still is going to give the issue of people still not
being able to make the meeting. If personnel want to vote which they can
they can set it on the agenda page with their vote being voiced by them or
they can give their vote to someone else for that person to cast in their
place. I know i know i know people are not going to like that but we have to
be reasonable in how we handle this. Then if we use votes after the meeting
well then thats even a longer wait the takes place and cause twice as much
time before a decision is made. Again thats not solving anything. After we
have a meeting that should be it...topic voted upon and solved and we move
onto the next topic. Again i ask that votes be cast prior to meeting if
people ahead of time understand that they wont be able to attend. This way
they still get a vote and we dont have to have lag or wait time inbetween
topics before they are solved.

There are going to be good and bad in any place we choose to hold our
meetings...but we have to make decisions on it and we must choose the lesser
of the two evils!! :D

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Daniel Stone <webmaster at>wrote:

> Thank you Matthew,
> This would work similar as discussion at UDS-l of using moot bot.
> Let me explain what you seem to not realize that this nor IRC could do.
>  1. IRC does not log itself.
>  2. RC can not be accessed later to put you vote or opinion.
>  3. IRC meetings only allow admin vote or topic change or admin must
>     call all functions and you must understand the bot and Perl to get
>     the full function of the bot.
> I would like to be part of state discussion but I have a job that I work
> 80+ hours a week. So as you may see the meetings may be harder to attend in
> a time slot. The IRC meeting could still happen, for pressing items but
> votes should not use this as the sole decision maker.
> Instead use of something that gives a fishbowl effect
> mailing lists work and the state already uses one "I think"
> IRC is still CHAT no matter how you skin it. Chat is insecure by default in
> case you were not aware.
> If someone wanted to double vote they would merely need two or three
> connections with the use of proxy servers.
> Chat can not securely pass files
> Chat does not bring the links into it it merely allows you to post them
> I agree with Lee with the respect of conferencing for a larger logged
> meeting.
> But unfortunately votes and spreadsheets go hand in hand.
> The use of the forum for votes would be fine but not put in a poll (not
> fishbowl effect) just ask a question and count the five or six replies wow
> how hard.
> Sorry that I don't agree with the status quo and see no reason why I should
> it just does not work if a chair or admin mods the room to cut the chatter.
> And discussion that has happened on the IRC to add mods to the forum has
> had no results.
> Cordially,
> Daniel Stone
> matthew byers wrote:
>> Hello Texans,
>> I am proposing the use of a bot in our beloved channel. This is mainly in
>> response to the ongoing discussion that irc is not suitable for holding
>> meetings. I would like to point out that every argument against not using
>> irc can be resolved with the use of a bot. I would also like to point out
>> that people not being able to speak all at once causing confusion is not a
>> bad thing despite it being used as a argument against irc meetings. All can
>> see here just what the capabilities of a bot can handle in a room. Covering
>> topic setting, to relaying meeting times, to url relaying, and yes even
>> voting on subjects discussed during meetings which will not only keep track
>> of how many votes were given but also whether the votes were in favor of,
>> neutral or against the topic. This will enable us to not only keep track of
>> votes but to also resolve an issue right there during the meeting instead of
>> having to wait till the next meeting to solve any issues or having to have
>> someone go back and parse thru meeting logs to count up votes to make a
>> decision as would such be needed to do in say google wave. Also as we all
>> know since we are in irc logging for meetings is really simple and enables
>> users who were not able to attend the ability to quickly review the entire
>> meeting without waiting time in between. If any of you are familiar with the
>> use of bots than you already know just how functional and overall enjoyable
>> they can be...especially when you start making factoids for use!!  Again i
>> am not fully against exploring different avenues, wave and dimdim were
>> presented and i am now offering a bot. You can find out more about votebot
>> by visiting here.* *
>> If you agree that a bot should be implemented or are against the idea
>> please make it clear with a response. Again this has not been implemented
>> yet so please know one blow this up into an argument of unfair treatment of
>> some sort. This is only an offer right now.!!! :D
>> --
>> God Bless

God Bless
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ubuntu-us-tx mailing list