VoteBot in Tx channel
webmaster at catcodesigns.net
Sun Dec 20 16:05:54 GMT 2009
Please reread what I have said previously.
1. I have been the one posting the logs and if I do not make the
meetings the IRC will not be logged unless someone else does or they
incorporate some type of bot.
2. This can be and is a problem
If a vote takes place on IRC and passes then people will be wondering
why it did not in fact incorate the ideas from the mail list or forum or
3. I did not state that "only admin vote"
I am saying that only an admin can change topic - start/end vote - and
that moot and other bots requires an admin to understand perl to use
Simple spreadsheets can be used for voting tally or mailing lists
forums will also work but not as a poll more as a simple topic
Agenda pages where on the wiki/ forum/ mailing list/ or on one of the
Agenda items that come to the mailing list do not get any wieght even if
they have discussion.
On the wiki is maybe the right place to put something but /rarely look
to a wiki to find the current topic on anything it should always be a
mailing list because as said before everyone should be using it.
Even when the mailing list is here
discussions that should be on it never get here so people are left out
of the loop
To me any vote should be announced that it is going to happen.
Have a day set for it to start and leave open for a week to gain input
on all sides
Even items that come to the meeting should have a week before deadline
to come to the meeting
That would mean any item to be voted on in a meeting would have approx
8-9 days before discussion started for voting on the mailing list and
forums this makes the most amount of people aware of any items to vote
(hold on is that cross posting,NO ITS NOT)
Just as this discussion stems from another topic that I started. It
helps others to see the new info and have an adequate amount of time to
matthew byers wrote:
> 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 catcodesigns.net <mailto:webmaster at catcodesigns.net>> 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
> 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.
> 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.* https://wiki.ubuntu.com/VoteBot *
> 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
More information about the Ubuntu-us-tx