16:00:03 #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2010-07-22) 16:00:03 Meeting started Thu Jul 22 16:00:03 2010 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:00:03 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 16:00:03 #meetingname irc-support-sig 16:00:03 #topic init process 16:00:03 The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig' 16:00:43 16:00:53 um, nirik - no announcement? 16:01:11 * EvilBob 16:01:13 dcr226: sorry, got hit with work crisis. Will try and do one. 16:01:26 * DiscordianUK is here 16:01:56 16:02:34 * meGenius is here!! 16:02:42 nirik, ooc, do we (ops) have @say permissions? 16:02:51 dcr226: yes, I think so. 16:02:55 would have to check to make sure tho. 16:03:45 dcr226, anyone with botperms should i think 16:03:48 looks like it 16:04:31 ok, I don't have too much today, so lets go ahead... 16:04:37 #topic Week in review 16:04:53 http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html 16:05:03 pretty typical, but on the busy side week I think. 16:06:14 anyone have anything they would like to note from the last week? any problems that came up a lot, etc? 16:06:15 notable change on the pulseaudio howto, which has been fixed - omitting pulse-rt and replacing with pulse-access on F13 16:06:41 oh interesting 16:06:45 Over all I think the average user... ability to help themselves level was better from what I saw 16:06:55 I was going to say stupidity level 16:07:07 dcr226: cool. 16:07:16 From what I saw anyhow 16:07:34 Gah, repetitive 16:08:09 ok, moving along... 16:08:18 #topic Feedback process ideas 16:08:20 dcr226, adding real users to pulse-access is a gaping security hole btw. 16:08:30 yeah, I picked up on that earlier 16:08:59 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Support_Feedback is what I had from a week or two ago. 16:09:13 I still haven't done much concrete with it, but hope to soon. 16:09:28 If folks have ideas or general thoughts on it, add them to the wiki page... 16:10:16 nirik, still not fond of negative actions. 16:10:24 me either... 16:10:46 how did that karma testing thing go? 16:10:58 first hurdle #fail 16:11:02 ouch 16:11:03 the karma plugin seems broken on x86_64. 16:11:38 i didnt even touch it and its still broken 16:11:48 ha. 16:11:55 Heh 16:12:10 anyhow, I will try and add some concrete proposals based on the wiki page ideas next week.... 16:12:27 #topic Open Floor 16:12:34 Anyone have any items for open floor? 16:12:46 I don't think its appropriate to have a certain logger in -ops 16:13:00 * dcr226 doesn't know if its appropriate to name names 16:13:25 how can watch the logs, dcr226?? 16:13:29 FACT: any user in the channel can and probably is logging 16:13:45 EvilBob, not the point, this logger belongs to a non-op 16:13:54 A seperate logger for a non op 16:13:59 yup 16:14:09 Is a bit over the top 16:14:09 if logging is an issue then do we go back to no non-ops in the channel 16:14:12 i think you can name then. 16:14:17 * nirik doesn't care much... 16:14:25 Best not to name em here 16:14:29 is the logging ok if they are around? 16:14:33 So he changes the nick and logs with a bouncer 16:14:39 if so, they could just log with their client. 16:14:43 ok, raised my concern - thats it really 16:14:44 BFD 16:15:09 If it is a real concern then eliminate the non-ops hanging in the channel 16:15:21 then the issue is closed 16:15:30 EvilBob+1 16:15:30 well, personally i'm up for that as well, or at least vote them / make it temporary 16:15:37 Motion to remove all non-ops from the channel 16:15:40 +1 16:15:42 +1 16:15:44 -1 16:15:59 unless by temporary invite 16:16:03 I think our current policy is fine... allow folks who we have invited. 16:16:09 it is not unanimous, I don't think we can 16:16:18 sorry, but that gets real troublesome. ops in any #fedora-* channel are rather difficult to enumerate 16:16:30 Nope it's indecisive 16:16:53 ok then - clarify the invite rule. at what point does the invite expire? 16:16:54 NOTE: I was playing Devil's Advocate making the motion 16:17:10 I am fine with invited parties being in the channel 16:17:27 dcr226: good question... when revoked? 16:17:30 party in the channel! 16:17:33 jk 16:17:44 mock: did you bring the bacon? ;) 16:17:46 in any case, the user in question was invited 16:17:49 i have no issue with non-ops in the channel if they are invited 16:17:52 nirik: always 16:17:56 The other question is what are they doing with the logs? 16:17:57 meh. forget teh bacon, where's the scotch? 16:18:08 I have no issue, based on invite - but my point is, when does the invite expire? 16:18:26 so, $helperX is invited to warn about a potential troll 16:18:53 when the person who invited them says 'hey, do you still need to be around here?' ? 16:18:56 if he isn't _managing_ the channel, I see no reason to continue, unless he's invited for a longer period pending nomination 16:18:58 make a motion at a meeting if it a standing invite needs to be revoked 16:19:13 We have often invited people to leave when they've come into raise single issues 16:19:29 nirik: I think we need to find a polite way to evict short term invites 16:19:44 that works 16:19:50 EvilBob: proxy?? 16:19:59 The logger was a prospective op 16:20:13 EvilBob: I always found "Hey, we don't typically allow people to idle here unless invited..." to work 16:20:29 offer them bacon and the door 16:20:53 nirik: "we don't typically allow people to idle here once a problem is resolved..." 16:21:35 the "invited" bit can be rough sounding when they were invited 16:21:35 well, I have no problem kicking the logger out and asking the person if they need to have it there... 16:21:39 EvilBob: sure. 16:22:10 nirik, that works for me (logger), if they return - and ask to let it back in..... 16:22:12 and we could probibly just continue discussion on that in the ops channel... 16:22:13 nirik: RE: the logger, I feel we can leave that action if any up to you 16:22:40 That ones a hot potato anyway 16:22:52 not for the direct :) 16:23:16 Any other issues before we waste all our time on this that we can discuss later? 16:23:49 EvilBob: word 16:24:04 dcr226: Thanks for bringing it up BTW, I think the clearer we can make the channel policy the better 16:24:11 no worries 16:24:44 anyone have any other topics? 16:24:56 Just a comment 16:25:24 Try not to target users automatically just because of bad behavior 16:25:25 fire away 16:25:55 let them show their colors before firing up your laser targeting system 16:26:12 give them a chance to change or they never will 16:26:19 16:26:29 well said :) 16:26:31 sure. 16:26:49 * nirik also points again to http://freenode.net/catalysts.shtml for everyone to take a quick read. ;) 16:27:12 ok, if we have nothing else will close out the meeting here in a minute. 16:27:56 thanks for coming everyone! 16:28:02 #endmeeting