18:00:01 #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2011-03-03) 18:00:01 Meeting started Thu Mar 3 18:00:01 2011 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:00:01 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:01 #meetingname irc-support-sig 18:00:01 #topic init process 18:00:01 The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig' 18:00:07 morning everyone. 18:00:21 afternoon 18:00:23 como esta 18:00:28 hello nirik 18:00:43 hi 18:00:58 * EvilBob 18:01:09 * N3LRX 18:01:12 * Southern_Gentlem 18:01:22 * Sonar_Gal 18:01:52 To start I would like to apologize for nirik falling down on the job 18:01:59 ;) 18:02:11 ha. :) Thanks EvilBob. 18:02:18 shall we go ahead and get started? 18:02:20 We put a lot of weight on his shoulders 18:02:29 #topic Week in review 18:02:29 http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html 18:02:41 been a busy week for me. ;) 18:02:49 pretty typical for the channel. 18:03:08 * Southern_Gentlem will not be around much next week 18:03:20 Southern_Gentlem: Good to know 18:03:33 I'll try to step it up a little 18:04:26 yearly Sans Class 18:04:35 anyone have anything they would like to shout out from this last week? 18:04:52 one kick from social IIRC 18:05:09 we have 3 people with network problems in unreg 18:05:37 belligerent user looking for "help" not support, refused to respect the channel purpose 18:05:48 asked them to file a ticket and they refused 18:05:58 No ticket, no problem 18:06:18 I cleared the ban list in -unregistered 18:06:37 yeah. 18:06:47 speaking of tickets: 18:06:49 #topic Tickets 18:06:49 https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1 18:06:52 it has some real old bans in it and was interfering with the "flushing process" 18:07:01 s/has/had 18:07:38 yeah, people were banned in there due to bouncing in and out a lot. 18:08:09 i think they were rebanned this morning 18:08:31 I'm not sure I ever recall anyone fixing their client and asking for the ban to be removed. ;( 18:08:31 ticket #30 - Lots of kudos to dcr266! 18:08:49 and we have: 18:08:51 WTG dcr226 18:08:54 ticket #31 Great Experience in #fedora 18:09:04 we need to frame that one 18:09:07 so, positive feedback. :) Very nice and good work dcr226 18:09:18 EvilBob, nirik ta :-) 18:09:18 Yeah a general ticket for the channel, that is a first, nice to see 18:15:25 Seems there is a net split? 18:15:42 in fairness, EvilBob contributed to #30 also :-) 18:15:43 looks like my client died there :-/ 18:16:00 there was getting ready to be a grad student split 18:16:09 yeah, good to see. ;) 18:16:09 would anyone like to step up to close tickets with our thanks? 18:16:09 I can do it. ;) 18:16:09 #topic fedbot tweaking 18:16:09 * nirik sighs at freenode 18:16:09 yeah, more lag 18:16:11 looks like my client is behaving badly ;-( 18:16:13 yeah, freenode is having problems. ;( 18:16:14 Southern_Gentlem: +1 18:16:15 RE: Tickets, would like to find a way to automate the bot to send out the trac pointer based on lines posted to the channel 18:16:15 I would like 18:16:15 we have agreed in the past that a time based post is Bleh 18:16:15 a pointer that is activity based would be less annoying IMO 18:16:15 ideas/opinions? 18:16:16 Net split? 18:16:36 yeah, net.death 18:17:05 Not sure who saw my post about Tickets 18:17:09 if someone can make such a plugin I'd be fine with giving it a try 18:17:21 OK cool someone did 18:17:37 I can look at that 18:17:59 say after 100 actual lines in channel it spews out the feedback url... or 200 or 500 or whatever. 18:18:17 nirik: yeah I was thinking 500 or so 18:18:17 1000 18:18:27 we can always adjust if it gets anoying. 18:18:34 without join/part 18:18:38 Southern_Gentlem: Yeah that was another number I tossed out 18:18:49 Southern_Gentlem: correct, just text lines 18:18:53 well, make a plugin where the number can be changed 18:19:16 yeah, config option FTW. 18:19:55 so, also on the bot topic... a user mailed me and suggested: 18:19:59 ""A suggestion: It would be great if quiet15m and kban15m told users 18:19:59 how many seconds they're quieted or banned for. Especially with 18:19:59 kban15m: otherwise, new #fedora visitors will assume they're banned 18:19:59 until a manual unban, as is common on IRC." 18:20:20 I'm not sure telling people the time is a good idea... 18:20:33 but I do think we should make efforts to tell people why we did anything we did on them. 18:20:41 * thomasj laaaate here 18:20:48 We have suggested communication is important in the past but I know I sometimes forget 18:21:08 yeah, I'm +1 for getting the bot to /msg them with details of what happened, and where to get more info 18:21:32 I have some buttons and right click commands for doing things like this I am going to try to pull together and post 18:21:48 I am strongly against sending a /msg or PM 18:22:13 the problem with a pm would be it would be from the bot... and they would just reply there and get no answer. 18:22:18 we tell users not to send a PM with out asking, there is no reason we should be doing the same when other options exist 18:22:28 +1 18:23:02 ideally we would use quiet more, and explain in channel about it better... but thats back to the fallable human element. 18:23:10 I think either way is good, we need to let the user know the reason we banned them, particularly when the bot is messaged or it's done from -ops or such. 18:23:30 We need to look at those other options, sending a PM only would result in the user talking to the bot and will not prevent the bleeding hearts from crying. 18:23:39 Perhaps someone can explain the difference in quiet and ban to me, I thought they were the same for dancer... 18:24:05 Khaytsus: similar. with quiet they can't send to channel, but could leave and rejoin. 18:24:06 Khaytsus: a ban keeps them from parting and joining, a quiet does not 18:24:19 with ban they can't send to channel, but if they leave they can't come back in 18:24:26 Aha, I see. 18:24:45 does quiet/ban tell you it can't send to channel ? 18:24:56 Makes sense, I must have misread something on a help document saying they were the same :) 18:24:56 It has in the past 18:25:15 nirik: it should perhaps be tested 18:25:37 yeah, I am thinking quiet might look better to the end user. 18:25:50 how about we investigate options over the next week and revisit this next week? 18:25:51 * thomasj_ kicks his ISP 18:25:59 I don't think there is any urgency here to change anything... 18:26:11 kicking has a message/memo option that I think is abetter option for a kick ban 18:26:47 we might see how well that shows up to the client too... 18:26:52 it is posted to the channel with the kick, the user can see it as can the channel so it is clear to everyone what has happened and why 18:27:24 yeah EvilBob has been doing that for a while 18:27:37 example * fedbot has kicked KolonelPanic from #fedora-social (This is a test of the emergency ass kicking system, this is only a test. Signed, EvilBob) 18:27:58 that is what is shown to the channel and to the user in xchat 18:28:24 I would doubt that it is different based on default client configurations 18:28:27 yeah, all the aliases have ability to add a note I think too. 18:28:40 we might try it in irssi... not sure what other clients are popular. 18:29:12 the above example was issued using one of the kick commands that I have set up 18:29:19 Guy is in a meeting right now and he is using irssi 18:29:35 anyone else just split? 18:29:52 GeneralAccident: freenode is on a rollercoaster. ;) 18:30:04 nirik: you can see the above kick at 9:37 your local time in -social 18:30:30 yeah, I think thats all good for kick/ban... I guess that won't work for quiet or just ban tho. 18:31:06 nirik: the client side shows "* You have been kicked from #fedora-social by fedbot (This is a test of the emergency ass kicking system, this is only a test. Signed, EvilBob)" 18:31:28 ban and quiet don't have the reason option ;-( 18:31:36 right. 18:31:51 GeneralAccident: a +q you can send the message to the user IN the channel 18:32:00 indeed you can 18:32:06 by message I mean explanation 18:32:08 and a ban 18:32:17 * EvilBob sighs 18:32:33 Just to be clear on my stand on this 18:32:45 you don't want to PM anyone, got it :-) 18:32:51 I will NOT be using any commands that send a user a PM 18:33:00 so, the question is: do we want to setup something that automatically sends something to channel when someone is quieted or banned (but not kicked)? or leave it up to who did the action? 18:33:39 Of course it's the BOT that does the PM... 18:33:42 on one side a canned message looks more professional and would avoid someone forgetting to say anything. 18:34:08 nirik, break it down. for a canned message I am personally +1 18:34:09 on the other side it's another bit of noise in channel and might cause other people to start discussing it instead of staying on topic. 18:34:14 I don't see a point of banning someone if you are not going to kick them also 18:34:36 and personally, I'm +1 for the /msg, but I'm also happy for it to be in the channel. Either way, I'll volunteer to do the bot work 18:34:47 EvilBob: so they could stay in channel and learn from folks? ie, a better solution could be discussed that they could see, but not disrupt, etc. 18:35:16 nirik: then IMO a +q should be used if the ops decides they should be able to do that 18:35:43 Does a +q follow a part/join? 18:35:44 sure, but if you just do +q, the only indication that it happened is when the user types and gets a 'cannot send to channel' message. 18:35:50 yes, it does. 18:36:19 "*fedbot sets mode +q on user" 18:36:37 that is an indication 18:36:37 so they could be quieted for a longer time period, and keep coming back to channel to watch, but couldn't send anything to the channel. 18:36:55 sure, but they might not know why, or who did it, or how to lift it, etc. 18:37:37 nirik: sending a short but professional message to the channel as an explanation would do that 18:37:51 yep. 18:38:14 cool. can we have the message? or is that outside of the scope of the meeting? 18:38:29 I see no need to spam the channel if the k/b/q reason can be included from the bot, if provided IRC will show it to the victim and the channel. 18:38:36 I think it will be something we work out outside the meeting 18:38:48 Yep, not to be decided on exact specifics here. 18:39:16 "User foo has been quieted in channel. Please read our Channel_FAQ and reconsider your approach. File a ticket at http:... if you feel this action was incorrect, or simply wait for the quiet to end" 18:39:29 Khaytsus: the reason can only be included on kicking. 18:39:33 Khaytsus: In your statement above we need to clarify, a ban or a quiet does not have a memo, it would be a bot side thing 18:39:37 yeah, lets work on this out of band. 18:39:55 is everyone ok with a canned message for quiet/ban without kicks in channel? 18:40:12 +1, unless it becomes a PITA, in which case, we can re-visit 18:40:15 +1 18:40:18 Sounds fine to me 18:40:19 +1 18:40:37 * nirik is good with it. Hopefully will cut off confusion. ;) 18:40:51 ok, anything further on bot tweaks? 18:40:52 I'll work with GeneralAccident to work on and test the commands and alias, whatever it is called 18:41:12 excellent. thanks. 18:41:17 I gotta run, meeting at 2 and business to attend to before then. 18:41:26 #action EvilBob and GeneralAccident to work up a message for quiet/ban without kicks. 18:41:28 Khaytsus: Thanks for being here 18:41:33 Khaytsus: enjoy. 18:41:44 #topic Open Floor 18:41:49 anyone have anything for open floor? 18:42:04 alpha is coming up next week, so we might see a influx of alpha using people. 18:42:30 yeah, I'm just testing an potential issue with the hybrid iso - keep you all posted 18:43:02 cool. 18:43:11 How's this meeting time for everyone? 18:43:18 Works for me 18:46:10 lagged again? 18:49:15 As good as the other time. 18:49:49 what did I miss? 18:50:06 I'm good with it - will probably be a few minutes late for roll call each week - no biggie 18:50:24 wow 18:50:28 Lagged again! 18:50:29 @ping 18:50:36 major lags today 18:50:37 * dcr226 feels like Marty McFly 18:50:39 it's actually nicer for me. ;) 18:50:39 ok, if nothing else, will go ahead and call it a meeting. ;) 18:50:39 Thanks for coming everyone! 18:50:39 #endmeeting