Channel Ops Discussion
From C
Contents |
##c policy
Now that we have migrated to ##c and can do all sorts of things to the access list, I'd like to suggest that we go slowly.
Firstly, I would like to nominate defrost to be arauko's successor as channel owner.
Secondly, I'd suggest that one new op be added (at most) a month, and that we gather nominations over that month, with the existing cabal of ops to select in some vaguely pseudo-democratic way someone with lots of nominations and who is also sufficiently lazy not to actually upset things.
Maybe with a week for people to whinge about it after a selection has been made.
Friday, 18th March 22:30 PM (UTC + 0 ) - Op the Bot ?
pragma_ is keen to see candide bot replace cpp bot and seems to have done the work to justify that. Candide has had flood control, with a +q timeout and a private message directing offender to use www.rafb.net/paste site - reoffenders suffer a sliding scale of increasing +q time. Candide will op/deop long enough to acheive goal and not hang about with a hat on
defrost is soliciting comment about this on behalf of pragma from zhivago / twkm / others ...
any potential security flaws ?
fate of #c
twkm , zhivago , et al ...
Regarding the current lack of active ownership of #c at the moment :
I had the following conversation with lilo today, noon Friday 25th Feb. 2005 WAST (GMT + 8)
lilo: wanted to talk to you about the possibility of moving #c to ##c and recovering channel ownership in the process 8)
defrost: ahh, okay - how's that work ?
defrost: manually ask everone to leave , then kick everyone reamaining, close channel, destroy, rebuild ?
lilo: usually what happens is that you forward and nudge and cajole and nudge some more and people start moving over 8)
lilo: I've talked to arauko about it, and he seems willing to provide the channel (though I think he wants to be on the channel staff list *sighrin*)
lilo: he doesn't seem like a bad sort
lilo: what I'm thinking, though, is that we should put together an irc-only group and fill out a group contact form
lilo: if we do a group contact, several useful things result
lilo: (1) the people who are staffing the channel can figure out explicitly how they want it organized - and then just implement what they figure out
lilo: (2) if you have a few group contacts and some minimal organization, you won't lose the channel contact role again
lilo: (3) I'm planning on setting up a separate page for 'about' channel groups, and it'll start out pretty small, so ##c will be pretty visible 8)
lilo: (4) you get nice attractive .about-c cloaks if you want them :)
lilo: all you really need to do in order to accomplish this is to get the people who are currently running the channel together and organize explicitly as a group
lilo: then submit a group contact form
defrost: okay, I can pass this info onto zhivago / twkm if you like - we have a list of about 5 to 10 others we're mostly happy with ..
lilo: well, figure out how you want to organize it; maybe set up a small web page if you haven't already
lilo: then delegate somebody to submit a form
lilo: ideally a few somebodies, with their authority clearly delineated
lilo: it'll be hard to lose the channel again
defrost: okay, we have a web page (wiki) hosted by twkm atm - where do we submit form to ?
defrost: one thing I'm curious about, I can ask twkm if you like - what do you mean about arauko 'providing' channel - you mean sitting in it as original owner to hold it ?
defrost: the other thing, once everyone is in ##c, does the current #c get rest in some manner and then reclaimed ?
lilo: he's the current channel contact
lilo: hasn't really been defined yet that someone can take over an 'about' channel by filling out the contact form
lilo: maybe that's the next stage of evolution, I dunno
Any comments ??
- bah. nobody will think to /join ##c (clients already have ambiguities with this foolish naming convention, new clients assume the # unless you provide it, so some people will think they are joining ##c but will land instead in #c), and #c will still exist so there will be confusion. --twkm 06:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There is a magical redirection feature to bootstrap this silly scheme, as demonstrated in #linux -> ##linux. -- Zhivago
- Unedited and unformatted #c channel log from March 09, 2005 involving discussion between lilo and #c regarding ##c: [http://pragma.homeip.net/about_c.txt] --24.205.107.109 18:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Notes by Geert <geert@irssi.org>
================================
[08:08:58] -ChanServ- Channel: #c
[08:08:58] -ChanServ- Contact: BlkMajik, last seen: 1 week 6 days (2h 10m 2s) ago
[08:08:58] -ChanServ- Registered: 6 years 25 weeks 3 days (2h 10m 42s) ago
All the channel information should be the same. It's a willingly name conversion which shouldn't affect the channel contact or alternative contact. The new ##c channel should have BlkMajik as contact and he should decide weither to add or reject op canidates.
Name conversions should NOT affect channel contacts / ownership.
The forwarding is fairly simple, the channel is set "+if #cc", and then kick everybody with ChanServ, when they try to rejoin, they are forwarded to ##c. You can do a /remove foreach user, but not every client rejoins on that.
== End Note.
Notes by lilo
=============
As freenode head of staff, I would disagree with Geert. BlkMajik has had the same access to policy information concerning "about" channels that everybody has had for at least six months. No one should magically be awarded an "about" channel. I haven't been able to reach him the times I've tried. But if you can find him, bring him in on the discussion.
From the draft policy document (a clarification of the state of play of policy on channel naming):
"....Groups using the network are encouraged to begin using the new naming model as soon as possible, to avoid last minute problems, including the unavailability of specific "about" channels...."
== End Note.
Notes by Zhivago
=============
While I wrote in the topic that #c would be redirecting in a week or so, this is by no means a forgone conclusion.
If a significant number of people want to defer it, then that's what we'll do.
Otherwise, arauko who owns ##c has kindly offered equivalent and/or better rights for the current set of #c ops on ##c, which will get rid of a couple of maintenance problems, although we'll need to work out some mechanism for approving new ops or something, but that can be done more slowly.
Since lilo's recent bout of lunacy does not appear to be reversible we have little choice but to move to ##c at some point or to go to another network.
If you are considering the second option, then oftc might be viable.
Otherwise I doubt that you'll notice any significant difference between ##c and #c.
Notes from orbitz
We changed over #c++ last night, it took 5 minutes and the only disruption was getting kicked out of #c++ to join ##c++. It's rather painless. As silly as the whole thing is if it's going to happen just do it, it's not that big of a deal.
=========
Poppavic Notes:
Look, as I see it - this is a mornic-solution to a non-prob... Let the PRO'S use ##c-ansi (or whatever).
LILO's issue - not LILO - may be lost, but the issue means "bad programming" at this point. We're looking at a solution to the wrong prob, at the wrong place. We are never going to bait GCC, ANSI and ISO to come here - and if they will, I'd SOAK them - let them play like anyone else.
No one I've spoken with even UNDERSTANDS the idea - so the reasoning is moot.
Try another reason/approach
=========
=========
Comments from lilo:
Perhaps the draft update to the channel naming policy will lay it out a bit more clearly for you. The basic elements of this same policy have been up for at least six months on the main policy page, so if you don't like it, it's a shame you haven't looked at network policy page before now.
Freenode is home to official channels for a variety of participating groups, and one purpose of the policy is to make it easy for groups arriving at freenode to get control of channels with their project names on them. The traditional IRC "first-come, first-served" channel reservation model doesn't work very well for us; in the past, projects have had to defer to existing channel owners, which creates some problems. Projects should own their channels.
Another purpose of the policy is to make a clear distinction between, on the one hand, channels which have an outside claim to their names (#gentoo, #apache, etc.) and, on the other hand, channels which do not have such a claim (##C++, ##linux, ##debian). Since we have so many channels owned directly by their associated external projects, and since the not-for-profit entity which runs the network has a goal of providing such external projects with facilities, it makes a lot of sense to provide them with the choicest channel name "real estate" (#foo versus ##foo), and move toward a system that consistently differentiates between official and unofficial channels, even in cases where the network doesn't contain both.
tor
see http://tor.eff.org for more info.
Notes from someone
At the same time, could you unban tor?
i'm not interested in doing so. the network provides me one control to handle idiots using tor, so i have used it. other ops may do as they feel appropriate. --twkm 22:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Zhivago
In the absence of any coherent objection, I will see about forwarding the channel sometime tomorrow.
- probably the simplest way will be to set a ban of *!*@*!##c, then start a mass kick (since only BlkMajik can use the Chanserv clear users command). the latter may be easier if a network admin does it. --twkm 21:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
