17:00:13 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2016-09-08) 17:00:13 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Sep 8 17:00:13 2016 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:13 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc_support_sig_(2016-09-08)' 17:00:13 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig 17:00:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig' 17:00:13 <nirik> #topic init process 17:00:24 <striker> .fas strikerttd 17:00:25 <zodbot> striker: strikerttd 'Striker Leggette' <striker@terranforge.com> 17:00:54 <nirik> who alls around for a meeting today? 17:01:03 <be_> hi 17:01:15 * N3LRX 17:01:16 * Khaytsus 17:01:40 <mattdm> I will be in a minute. Walking now. 17:02:03 <nirik> don't walk and irc! :) 17:02:56 * Khaytsus is impressed 17:03:57 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead... 17:03:59 <nirik> #topic Recent issues review 17:04:15 <nirik> any recent issues folks have noticed? common topics or the like we should look at? 17:06:32 * mattdm is actually here now 17:06:43 <nirik> it's all seemed pretty normal to me, nothing stands out. 17:07:23 <nirik> alright then... on to tickets I guess... the fun part. 17:07:35 <Khaytsus> Yep, just normal smattering of dnf needing to be thwacked to update for whatever reason.... Never super obvious to me why it sometimes needs etra flags which I'd have to grep for... 17:07:53 <nirik> #topic tickets: #192: condescending and rude behavior 17:07:55 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192 17:08:15 <nirik> so have folks reviewed the logs here? I guess fenrus02 isn't around? 17:08:37 <Southern_Gentlem> i have read over the logs several times 17:08:42 <mattdm> me too. 17:09:08 <striker> ditto 17:09:09 <be_> likewise 17:09:19 <Khaytsus> I've reviewed the logs and quickly compared them against my local 17:10:03 <be_> Khaytsus: I'm in US Central time if that helps you make sense of the timestamps in the log 17:10:37 <Khaytsus> be_: No issue there, sometimes logs are trimmed etc, which can affect context. that's all I was looking for really 17:11:04 <Khaytsus> And I saw none, I suppose I should explicitely say ;) 17:11:14 <mattdm> Khaytsus thanks 17:11:34 <be_> Khaytsus: saw none of what? context? 17:11:43 <Khaytsus> be_: I saw no issues with the logs. 17:11:46 <be_> oh 17:11:47 <nirik> So, where do we go from here? I'd kinda like to hear from fenrus02 on what he was thinking or what was going on... he didn't reply in the ticket either that I saw... 17:12:07 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, that the logs were trimmed in a way that we didnt have the full situation 17:12:18 <mattdm> So... does everyone agree that we would like Fedora's support channels to be more welcoming than this? 17:12:21 <nirik> (people have done this before... edited logs) 17:12:28 <be_> mattdm: absolutely 17:12:31 <striker> Well, removing the technical discussion from the logs, this kind of reminds me of the ticket I opened against another OP some time ago (rude behavior) 17:12:32 <nirik> you bet 17:12:45 <gnokii> mattdm: there you have to fire more as just fenrus as admin 17:12:56 <striker> I think OPs should need to be Ambassadors for one and then to abide by the foundations in a whole 17:13:12 <nirik> striker: ok, that rules me out then. 17:13:24 <striker> lol 17:13:50 <mattdm> I don't know if an ambassador requirement is necessary, but there definitely needs to be an agreement to abide by the friendship foundation (and the code of conduct) 17:13:53 <Khaytsus> gnokii: Please be unbiased here. Do not bring your bouncing issues into this. 17:13:55 * nirik is not an ambassador, nor do I have time to be. 17:14:02 <mattdm> (and the older "be excellent to each other") 17:14:20 <mattdm> nirik: thanks for clarifying that you're not ruling yourself out for the *other* reason there :) 17:14:25 <nirik> :) 17:14:34 <gnokii> its not a bouncing issue its more an Harrasment issue 17:14:38 <be_> yeah I don't know if it's necessary to require OPs to take on another time commitment 17:14:45 <Southern_Gentlem> gnokii, then file a ticket 17:14:58 <Southern_Gentlem> has nothing to do with the ticket we are discussing 17:15:02 <Khaytsus> +1 17:15:18 <gnokii> I dont file tickets I have the same opinion as be_ the crows hack not in their own eyes 17:15:23 <striker> I think another question thta might be hanging in the air is what happens to those OPs who do not abide by the Code of Conduct or Fedora's foundations? 17:15:48 <be_> IMO the first step is obviously to remove their OP privileges 17:16:12 <Khaytsus> nirik: Just to be CYA here, where do we define how we interact with users? Do we actually write that down? I'd think it would be in the IRC_support_sig page but I'm sure it's written somewhere. 17:16:17 <Khaytsus> be_: Noted. 17:16:26 <mattdm> Khaytsus++ 17:16:26 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for khaytsus changed to 1 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:16:37 <nirik> There is a process for adding or removing people 17:16:40 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_support_sig 17:16:58 <mattdm> Are expectations written explicitly somewhere? 17:17:00 <nirik> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct 17:17:02 <jflory7> Khaytsus: I was about to ask the same thing - some sort of guidelines for interacting with users seems like a helpful step. 17:17:06 <jflory7> nirik++ 17:17:20 <Khaytsus> jflory7: It seems unnecessary but also is a good guideline, and something to review. 17:17:32 <nirik> see above 17:17:46 <mattdm> nirik++ 17:17:52 <gnokii> mattdm: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct 17:18:00 <mattdm> " 17:18:04 <mattdm> Channel operators are expected to follow the guidelines on the Freenode Catalyst page." -> 404 17:18:14 <gnokii> and its continusely violated from themself 17:18:24 <Khaytsus> I didnt click through anything, good point there on the 404 mattdm, but I think this page does provide what I was looking for. 17:18:29 <jflory7> Ohhh, that link must have died out when freenode rewrote their website - it was a useful reference 17:18:30 <nirik> mattdm: ah yeah, they moved it 17:18:35 <be_> "Operators should discourage personal attacks or insults of other users in the channel, while not taking offense at attacks on themselves. 17:18:36 <be_> " 17:18:50 * mattdm found it 17:19:17 <mattdm> ooh, these are good! 17:19:21 <striker> I think a lot (if not all) of what OPs should abide by is already in the Code of Conduct for Fedora IRC and also on the Freenode page 17:19:25 <mattdm> https://freenode.net/catalysts 17:20:21 <be_> striker: I agree 17:20:24 <striker> Just a matter of the OP themselves actually following those 17:20:33 <Khaytsus> We hold users to the items listed in duties but perhaps we should also explicitely state we hold ourselves to those as well. 17:20:48 <Khaytsus> Or we say "users" are all users of our IRC channels. 17:21:06 <Khaytsus> I think that's likely the intent there but ops are included in "users". 17:21:07 <striker> Yep - OPs are users too :) 17:21:16 <mattdm> Khaytsus: well, the OPs are specifically asked by our policy to hold themselves to the catalyst guidelines 17:21:18 <striker> Khaytsus++ 17:21:18 <zodbot> striker: Karma for khaytsus changed to 2 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:21:24 <mattdm> Which this clearly is not. 17:21:34 <striker> mattdm++ 17:21:34 <zodbot> striker: Karma for mattdm changed to 4 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:21:55 <Khaytsus> mattdm: I am just attempting to baseline initially :) 17:23:30 <Khaytsus> So we all agree those guidelines are our baseline? 17:23:46 <nirik> we have always agreed to them in the past when we wrote and approved them. ;) 17:24:04 <Khaytsus> Agreed. 17:24:25 <striker> nirik: should we state or revise somewhere that OPs can lose their rights if those guidelines are broken? 17:25:00 <be_> striker: I think it'd be helpful to explicitly state that 17:25:30 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, we all now that being an opt is a privledge 17:25:34 <nirik> we could... although we probibly want some kind of majority vote that thats what happened so there's no ambiguity. 17:25:40 <mattdm> There's a line "Disputes about the actions of a channel operator are to be taken to the entire pool of operators for rough consensus." 17:26:03 <mattdm> That could be expanded with example resolution 17:26:04 <mattdm> s 17:26:06 <Southern_Gentlem> mattdm, thus the ticketing system 17:26:16 <mattdm> Southern_Gentlem: *nod* 17:26:25 <striker> nirik: is this one of those times where we vote? 17:26:44 <nirik> on what? whats the proposal? 17:26:58 <Khaytsus> mattdm: That does look like a good place that opens the discussion but doesn't go into enough detail. 17:27:03 <nirik> and according to the voting process it would be next meeting 17:27:12 <striker> ack 17:27:25 <Khaytsus> nirik: Process being creating a ticket with the voting options? 17:27:37 <striker> Khaytsus: I think just the OPs giving the +1 or -1 17:27:42 <striker> in the meeting 17:27:58 <Southern_Gentlem> **shakes head** 17:28:11 <Khaytsus> I agree, but the problem is I think we don't know what the action to take is yet. 17:28:18 <nirik> for my viewpoint, I'd like to hear from fenrus02. Does he ack that his behavior was not good? does he agree to do better? was he too busy with work and shouldnt have been on channel? or the like. 17:28:59 <Southern_Gentlem> well from that log he was juggling several different help requests at the same time 17:29:11 <Southern_Gentlem> nirik +1 17:29:28 <nirik> for me the other tickets mentioned (the newest of which is 3.5 years) don't add up to some kind of patten... if it was, why the 3.5 year gap? 17:29:40 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: which is an excuse, but not really acceptable. ;) 17:29:51 <nb> hi 17:29:55 <Khaytsus> I don't think past logs and tickets should be considered at this time. 17:30:19 <striker> so, I guess we need to come up with actions to take against repeat offenders? 17:30:33 <be_> well, I think action should've been taken years ago 17:30:35 <Khaytsus> There's no way to evalate those other tickets at this time.. Where those logs complete? What was going on at the time? Context is lost. 17:30:35 <nirik> well, I can see how they should, but it doesn't make sense to me that someone would have issues then stop for 3.5 years. he's been more active in those years... 17:31:06 <nirik> how long does it take for past mistakes to disappear? 17:31:14 <striker> 6 mo? 17:31:19 <striker> 3 mo? 17:31:28 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, it was looked over by a group of his peers 17:31:49 <be_> who essentially did nothing 17:31:55 <be_> repeatedly 17:31:56 <jflory7> Khaytsus: I think it might be more important to look at the outcomes / results of those tickets, e.g. was a warning given, how was it handled then, etc. I think the conclusion to those tickets is still relevant now 17:32:01 <mattdm> I agree on lost context -- maybe action *was* taken and behavior changed, and then there was a bad day 17:32:02 <Khaytsus> Can we come up with a suitable measure at this time? If we tell fenrus02 to take a break from op'ing, he will. Removing his +o flag isn't necessary IMO. 17:32:09 <mattdm> Or, maybe not. 17:32:31 <nirik> I don't think we did nothing. We didn't punish anyone, but IMHO teaching and improving is much better than punishing 17:33:07 <nb> nirik++ 17:33:07 <zodbot> nb: Karma for kevin changed to 26 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:33:25 <Khaytsus> BTW not that I"m suggesting that's the measure to take; just stating that he will respect what his peers request of him. 17:33:25 <mattdm> I am less concerned with what happens specifically to individuals than with making sure we have a more friendly channel going forward. 17:33:33 <be_> in an abstract sense, sure, but if fenrus02 actually improved, why are there SO MANY tickets? 17:33:36 <striker> ditto, mattdm 17:33:42 <be_> wouldn't one or two incidents have been enough? 17:33:48 <nirik> be_: why so few in the last 3.5 years? 17:33:49 <Khaytsus> mattdm: Agreed; but when does that start. Retroactively correct or do we start "today". 17:34:08 <be_> nirik: maybe that's because the ticketing system isn't exactly a straightforward way to report issues 17:34:08 <mattdm> Whatever actually works! 17:34:16 <be_> mattdm: likewise 17:34:17 <nirik> I think the bar was also much higher then... because things used to be VERY VERY bad when we first started. 17:34:26 <nirik> be_: perhaps. 17:34:32 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, also alot of those so called tickets were filed by a group of individuals who were coming through different communityies and trying to tear said communitiies apart 17:34:34 <nb> well, 1) Yes, I think that fenrus02 could be more friendlier/polite 17:34:35 <Khaytsus> mattdm: Being inherent in the process would be ideal of course but a line perhaps needs to be drawn. 17:35:09 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: that too. 17:35:13 <nb> 2) Ops are people too, and are volunteers, they have bad days sometimes, if you kick everyone out, then there will be no one left to help people 17:35:15 <be_> I don't think anyone who insults users coming for help should have power over those users 17:35:41 <be_> nb: clearly there are other OPs who manage to not insult users 17:35:56 <striker> nb: but ops need to know that when they are having a bad day to not get on IRC :) 17:35:58 <nb> 3) be_ true 17:36:06 <nb> oops /me didn't mean to put the 3) there 17:36:10 <nb> striker++ 17:36:10 <zodbot> nb: Karma for strikerttd changed to 2 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:36:13 <nb> be_++ 17:36:31 <nirik> striker: indeed. Or are too busy to help people or don't understand the problem, or think someone is starting to get mad at them so they should step away 17:36:40 <mattdm> nb On the other hand, if we have a friendlier experience, it will increase the base of possible new ops 17:36:41 <striker> nirik: yes 17:36:49 <be_> mattdm: my thoughts exactly 17:36:52 <nb> mattdm, true 17:36:55 <jflory7> mattdm++ 17:37:47 <be_> at least one of those old tickets was filed by someone who was really knowledgeable and who knows, may have been interested in being an OP if they didn't have such a bad experience 17:38:48 <nirik> anyhow, for me I think this depends on fenrus02's input. If he agrees this was bad and agrees to strive to do better, I am all for letting him do so... if he doesn't think he did anything wrong, or doesn't answer at all by next week or so, I am fine voting on removing his ops. 17:38:53 <nirik> be_: which one? 17:38:58 <Khaytsus> So is there something to put to a vote? Or we actively ensure that our guidance for user behavior must also include chanops. 17:39:02 <striker> nirik: for an action item, should we append the OP Code of Conduct page with actions taken against OP Repeat Offenders? 17:39:16 <striker> put it in place for the next time this happens 17:39:20 <Khaytsus> nirik: Crossed paths with you there. Agree on fenrus02's input 17:39:48 <nirik> striker: not sure what you mean, can you rephrase? 17:40:27 <be_> I think removing fenrus02's OP privilege should be the baseline 17:40:47 <striker> Sure - based on the negative feedback tickets against ops and a general consensus by the group, the first offense would be maybe a week removal from OP, the second maybe longer or permanent? 17:41:08 <striker> Instead of just removing OPs altogether for one offense 17:41:24 <be_> this is not one offense 17:41:38 <striker> be_: I am talking about OPs in a whole at the moment, not just one person :) 17:41:50 <be_> ah 17:42:05 <Khaytsus> striker: Actually removing the flag or asking the operator to stand down for a week? I'm of the opinion that unless the operator isn't willing to stand down, removing the flag is unnecessary. 17:42:47 <nb> Khaytsus, I agree 17:42:57 <striker> Not just the flag, but removal from the OPs channel as well 17:42:58 <be_> nirik: I don't remember which ticket that was off the top of my head. There are a lot to dig through and it would take a bit to find which one that was 17:43:00 * nirik isn't sure that adds much, but perhaps I need to ponder on it 17:43:34 <be_> Why are OPs held to a looser standard than any other user? 17:44:16 <nirik> what makes you think they are? 17:44:17 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, to be an op you are held to very high standards in the first place 17:44:26 <be_> if a random new user came in to #fedora and acted as fenrus02 did, what would you do? 17:44:27 <striker> well 17:44:34 <striker> Southern_Gentlem: that's debatable 17:44:35 <nirik> if a user was rude, likely they would be quieted for 15m and that would be the end of it. 17:44:45 <nirik> unless they persisted 17:45:14 * nirik notes we have 15min left until the next meeting. 17:45:27 <Khaytsus> striker: Hmm, I don't see how removing them from the op channel is useful either. I'm thinking about it like a short time-out, this is a remove and reinstatement. Doesn't seem necessary IMO. 17:45:49 <Khaytsus> striker: And if it is necessary... I think the penalty is much more severe than a 1 week time out. 17:45:52 <be_> Southern_Gentlem: it sure doesn't seem like it 17:46:57 <Khaytsus> So what action items do we have for right now? 17:47:14 * nb proposes <nirik> anyhow, for me I think this depends on fenrus02's input. If he agrees this was bad and agrees to strive to do better, I am all for letting him do so... if he doesn't think he did anything wrong, or doesn't answer at all by next week or so, I am fine voting on removing his ops. 17:47:46 <be_> "If he agrees this was bad and agrees to strive to do better, I am all for letting him do so" 17:47:46 <striker> I think that's a good first step 17:48:04 <be_> seriously?! how many times does someone have to be offensive? 17:48:19 <be_> H'es been let go SO MANY TIMES 17:48:22 * nb asks all voting members to vote 17:48:23 <be_> for YEARS 17:48:35 <mattdm> be_: well, again, over three years ago is the most recent, right? 17:48:38 <nirik> 3.5 17:48:45 * mattdm is not a voting member here 17:48:57 <nb> mattdm, FWIW, what do you think about that proposal? 17:48:57 <N3LRX> nb +1 17:48:59 <nb> +1 17:49:07 <striker> +1 17:49:24 <mattdm> I do think it should be made clear that real change is expected 17:49:26 <be_> I don't think fenrus02 should get away without any consequence 17:49:34 <nb> mattdm, yeah, i agree 17:49:44 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 17:49:49 <nirik> how do you judge that tho? it's somewhat subjective... 17:50:21 <mattdm> The basic benefit to being more harsh is to set an example and send the message that we're taking this seriously. 17:50:28 <be_> mattdm++ 17:50:34 <nirik> I mean you could have some kind of probation thing where no more tickets should be filed, but thats so easy to game... make new account, come in and bait and try and get them to do something so you can file a ticket. 17:51:02 <be_> OPs shouldn't be vulnerable to feeding trolls 17:51:04 <striker> nirik: I think that's a good test of personal willpower 17:51:13 <mattdm> striker: hah 17:51:19 <nirik> could be. 17:51:26 <striker> if we succom to trolls, then shouldn't we be held liable for our actions anyway? 17:51:27 <Khaytsus> be_: I see you want him punished for his interaction with you. However, this will set a firm baseline for behavior going forward. Not all is lost. 17:51:39 <gnokii> mattdm: I dont see a working solution here 17:51:50 <Khaytsus> striker: We have some _pretty_ persistent trolls ;) 17:52:13 <be_> I have a suggestion: suspending fenrus02's OPs privilege until he responds 17:52:20 <be_> at which point it can be reconsidered 17:52:41 <Khaytsus> -1 17:53:00 <striker> Are we voting on that, nirik? 17:53:03 <fenrus02> at what point did i use +o at all? i cannot find that part. 17:53:15 * nirik notes we have 7min to the next meeting. 17:53:22 <nirik> striker: we could 17:53:27 <nirik> but here's fenrus02 17:53:47 <Khaytsus> fenrus02: It's not about operating priviledges but operator behavior. But I don't see how +o flags affect this discussion at all beyond we should be held to a higher standard. 17:53:58 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, oh isnt that a 2 edge sword, if ops are not friendly then we are rude but the trolls cant get to us --we are friendly and still get tickets filed 17:54:32 <striker> That's something Khaytsus brought up :) - I believe a boot from #fedora-ops and removal of rights from Fedbot would be more concrete and show that we are taking it seriously 17:54:33 <be_> Southern_Gentlem: one can send strong, clear messages that trolling isn't tolerated without being rude 17:54:47 <be_> striker++ 17:55:02 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, yes can you show me in the logs where fenrus02 used any op privs 17:55:10 <Khaytsus> fenrus02: Do you agree that your interaction with be_ could have been less septic? 17:55:25 <jflory7> Southern_Gentlem: I think that's where the line would be drawn between taking action as an operator against a troll versus responding and contributing to the problematic discussion 17:55:28 <be_> Southern_Gentlem: again, that's not the point. No one is disputing that he didn't use op privileges in that situation 17:55:32 <fenrus02> Khaytsus, yep. went downhill abruptly. would have been better to walk away. 17:55:43 <nirik> so, I can take the infra meeting (5min) to #fedora-meeting-1... but I am running that one, so someone else will have to take over this one. ;) 17:55:54 <nirik> or we can move to tickets and continue in some other channel 17:56:03 <jflory7> I don't think anyone will argue against the fact that we're human and sometimes people are awful - but it's the difference in knowing when to step away and how to handle that kind of situation 17:56:18 * jflory7 digresses 17:56:31 <Khaytsus> Can we all agree to interject when _every_ user gets out of line? Not just holding non-chanop users accountable? 17:56:43 <be_> Khaytsus++ 17:56:47 <mattdm> Khaytsus++ 17:56:52 <striker> +1 17:56:54 <nb> Khaytsus++ 17:56:54 <zodbot> nb: Karma for khaytsus changed to 3 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:56:55 <striker> Khaytsus++ 17:56:55 <jflory7> Khaytsus++ 17:56:56 <nirik> +10 17:56:57 <zodbot> jflory7: Karma for khaytsus changed to 4 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 17:57:12 * nb thinks if we are going to hold ops more accountable, we should hold the normal users to the same standard 17:57:37 <Khaytsus> nb: I think there's no difference except that we expect to not have to warn ops; they should behave to start with 17:57:46 <nb> Khaytsus, true 17:57:51 <be_> Khaytsus++ 17:58:12 <be_> that's why I'm in favor of having a low threshold for removing OPs privileges 17:58:26 <be_> OPs shouldn't need to be warned 17:58:33 <Khaytsus> Being chanop doesn't make anyone more intelligent, knowledgable, or better than anyone else.. They just keep the trolls in line and the beligerant users at bay. 17:58:47 <be_> except when they ARE the belligerent users! 17:58:49 <Khaytsus> A perfect channelw ould need no chanops 17:58:56 <nb> Khaytsus, +10000 17:59:20 <nirik> #chair Khaytsus striker Southern_Gentlem 17:59:20 <zodbot> Current chairs: Khaytsus Southern_Gentlem nirik striker 17:59:24 <striker> I think I side with be_ on the topic of finding it a bit unnerving when we find rude users are also OPs of the channels they are in. 17:59:26 <Khaytsus> Okay, 1 minute, probably need to wrap up? 17:59:30 <nirik> infrastructure meeting -> #fedora-meeting-1 17:59:48 <Khaytsus> Okay, looks like nirik is redirecting folks, but i still think we should not continue this forever. 17:59:48 <nirik> we can move the next meeting if people want to keep going 18:00:00 <striker> Naw, I think we can end. 18:00:03 <Khaytsus> +1 18:00:07 <be_> not yet 18:00:20 <be_> some concrete action should be discussed 18:00:33 <be_> and probably voted on 18:00:35 <Khaytsus> be_: We have. We've said that _all_ users will be held to the same standards. 18:00:48 <be_> that's not a concrete action 18:00:55 <Khaytsus> And we go back to your need to punish. 18:01:05 <striker> be_: I think we have a good foundation of understanding at this point. 18:01:06 <nb> #agreed to interject when _every_ user gets out of line? Not just holding non-chanop users accountable? 18:01:13 <striker> We can take future tickets to the next meeting. 18:01:15 <nb> actually i think i can't do that, i'm not #chair 18:01:22 <be_> it's not about punishment 18:01:31 <striker> #agreed to interject when _every_ user gets out of line? Not just holding non-chanop users accountable? 18:01:35 <be_> as mattdm said earlier, it's about making #fedora a friendly place 18:01:41 <Southern_Gentlem> be_, it really seems to be from you 18:01:41 * striker is apparently not chair... 18:01:52 <jflory7> striker: I think this should be included in the wiki page linked earlier too 18:01:57 <nb> if there are no more topics, i suggest someone #endmeeting 18:02:02 <jflory7> Somewhere concrete to log the end result of the discussion here 18:02:04 <striker> jflory7: /agree 18:02:11 <Khaytsus> be_: And that's what we've agreed to here. Making every user held to the same standards. Do you agree with our standards as they are written? 18:02:14 <mattdm> There *was* a concrete action agreed to several pages back. 18:02:15 <be_> NOTHING is being done AGAIN 18:02:16 <nb> be_, we have already voted. Keeping on will not change the result. 18:03:01 <be_> Khaytsus: for the most part, but I do agree that they could outline consequences for OPs a bit more specifically 18:03:27 <Khaytsus> Okay we can take that as an action item for sure. 18:03:36 <jflory7> As an outsider, I also feel like it would be fair to have fenrus02 log his feedback into the ticket and close out the discussion there. Having to find acknowledgment and desire to improve an in IRC log is even harder than finding it in a ticket sometimes 18:03:53 <be_> jflory7: that's reasonable 18:04:04 <mattdm> jflory7 +1 18:04:07 <jflory7> I think a firm conclusion to this specific instance would also be helpful where all sides have logged their case in the public and open 18:04:09 <Khaytsus> Should we log a ticket to update the COC to be explicite there? 18:04:25 <nb> jflory7, true. I think we should ask him to reply in the ticket 18:04:26 <Southern_Gentlem> yes 18:04:33 <Khaytsus> Who's taking that? 18:04:49 <jflory7> Khaytsus: There's a good place to do this too: https://pagure.io/fedora-diversity 18:05:02 * Southern_Gentlem bye 18:05:04 <Khaytsus> jflory7: Sorry, don't recognize that URL? 18:05:29 <striker> I will take the action item for updating the ticket and COC - agree to #endmeeting? 18:05:39 <Khaytsus> Thanks striker! 18:05:40 <mattdm> striker++ 18:05:40 <zodbot> mattdm: Karma for strikerttd changed to 3 (for the f24 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 18:05:44 <jflory7> Khaytsus: It's the Pagure repo for the Fedora Diversity Team / Diversity Adviser. For anything Code of Conduct, I would consider logging it there or at least bringing tatica into that discussion too 18:05:45 <mattdm> thanks everyone 18:05:50 <jflory7> striker: ^^ 18:06:02 <be_> to reiterate, I'm not advocating taking action against fenrus02 because I have a personal grudge against him. I'm advocating taking action to set a clear example that that behavior is unacceptable 18:06:05 <Khaytsus> jflory7: Sounds fine with me, you want to do that? I'm not sure irc sig controls that? 18:06:16 <jflory7> Khaytsus: Yes, I can take that, actually 18:06:19 <striker> Ok, bye all! 18:06:20 <striker> #endmeeting