18:01 #startmeeting IRC Team 18:01 Meeting started Wed Nov 19 18:01:52 2014 UTC. The chair is hggdh. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 18:01 18:01 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 18:02 we start with the usual 18:02 #topic Review #ubuntu-ops-team 18:02 anything noteworthy here? 18:03 * Pici waves 18:03 Pici: hi, thank you 18:03 at least there are two of us here at the meeting 18:03 huzzah 18:05 OK. Nothing noteworthy. Moving on 18:05 Agreed 18:05 #topic Review last meetings action items 18:06 I do not remember any useful action items from last meeting. 18:06 moving on 18:06 #topic Open items in the IRCC tracker 18:06 I just noticed that the IRCC tracker seems to be down. 18:07 o/ 18:07 nevertheless, we also have Lars 18:07 "Fatal Error: Contact system adminstrator." 18:07 rww: go ahead 18:07 was just saying hi :) 18:07 heh 18:07 Pici: who admins it? 18:07 (missed the start of the meeting because IRL) 18:07 jussi did. 18:08 or tsimpson perhaps 18:08 * hggdh notes verbe's tense 18:08 anyway, I think this is a good point to get a closure on Lars/SamwiseGamgee/finrod 18:08 I'll poke them on the status of it anyway. 18:08 i think it's currently tsimpson. not 100% sure though 18:10 So. The IRCC had agreed that this user should receive the last chance. We (specifically, *I*) started to work on it, but received a strong disagreement from the ops-at-large 18:10 strong is an understatement 18:11 as such, the IRCC bows to the will of the people, and declares the issue closed. Lars/SamwiseGamgee/finrod will still be banned from some of the core #ubuntu channels. 18:12 anyone wishes to comment further on this? 18:12 * hggdh assumes no one. Moving on 18:12 I've said it before, imo the job of the IRCC is to both represent the users and the operators. We would be doing the latter a disservice by continuing to let a single user take advantage of us. 18:12 (was typing and thinking) 18:14 I agree, and I never disagreed with it, or stated otherwise. I still had hope, nevertheless, that the ops-at-large disagreement would have been expressed with more civility. 18:14 but this is not for here and now 18:14 indeed. 18:14 moving on 18:14 #topic Review Bugs related to the Ubuntu IRC Council 18:15 The only one there is the one regarding a floodbot rewrite. 18:15 I think it might be okay to close it... we have unopaste now, and drone is out there doing testing things. 18:16 thoughts? 18:16 well. 18:17 I would still keep the bug open, but updated with the fact that unopaste is in, and drone is being tried 18:17 Fair enough. I'll take care of that. 18:17 (we still do not have a real replacement for the flood bots 18:17 moving on 18:18 well, the factoid review, and the call for operators are from the old (last) meeting. I think we can bypass these two 18:18 #topic Membership applications 18:19 here we have phunyguy applying for Ubuntu membership 18:19 \o/ 18:19 wiki at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phunyguy 18:20 LP at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/phunyguy 18:20 (is IRCC quorum 2 or 3?) 18:20 o/ 18:20 that's a good question... I myself do not know the answer 18:21 how many people are on the ircc? 18:21 and it seems there are only two of us here 18:21 hggdh: isn't IRCC only 2 people at present with resignations? 18:21 cprofitt: 3 seats filled of 5 18:21 so would be 2 if we count filled and 3 if we count how many there are supposed to be 18:21 with two seats empty I would think 2 of 3 is a qurom 18:21 excellent 18:22 On the other hand, we are, at the moment, totalling 3 council seats. So -- methinks -- 2 out of 3 is majority 18:22 its usually 2/3rds of the people 18:22 so. Anyone wishes to drill phunyguy on his application for membership 18:22 elfy: 3. Tm_T, hggdh, Pici 18:22 * phunyguy is away (not here) 18:23 :) 18:23 (I personally have seen his work, and have no questions) 18:23 I will gladly answer any. 18:23 #voters Pici hggdh Tm_T 18:23 Current voters: Pici Tm_T hggdh 18:23 #vote on Ubuntu membership for phunyguy 18:23 Please vote on: on Ubuntu membership for phunyguy 18:23 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 18:24 +1 18:24 +1 received from hggdh 18:24 \o/ 18:24 +1 18:24 +1 received from Pici 18:24 \o/! 18:24 :) 18:25 giving Tm_T a few seconds to vote... 18:25 #endvote 18:25 Voting ended on: on Ubuntu membership for phunyguy 18:25 Votes for:2 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 18:25 Motion carried 18:25 long enough 18:25 phunyguy: welcome in :-) 18:25 thank you! 18:25 huzzah! 18:25 erry's active, if you need a priest^Wstaffer 18:25 congrats phunyguy :) 18:25 congrats phunyguy :) 18:26 congrats :) 18:26 :) 18:26 phunyguy: you will have to ask an IRCC member for your cloak, if you so desire. Of course, bear in mind we are hard to be found 18:26 congrats phunyguy 18:26 so, moving on 18:27 #topic Any Other Business 18:27 I assume that is in #freenode 18:27 phunyguy: ask IRCC wherever, and they'll hunt down a staffer and get it sorted 18:27 phunyguy: no, it is on #ubuntu-irc 18:27 oh whoops 18:27 phunyguy: actually you ahve to find the IRCC members, either in #ubuntu-irc or wherever, they have to hunt down staff and make the cloak request - staff then might ask you to confirm you want the cloak offered, and then all is relatively golden. 18:27 hggdh: are there other topics or are you looking for some? 18:27 (sorry for the comment) 18:28 i have a couple of topics that I didn't agendize because I'm bad 18:28 cprofitt: I am asking 18:28 hggdh: what's the movement on the nominations for new IRCC ? 18:28 rww: please go ahead, this is the whole idea on ABO, cater for the procastinators 18:29 first one was what elfy just asked 18:29 We've had one nomination. 18:29 elfy: we received on single nomination. This is not eough to even begin the process. 18:29 s/eough/enough/ 18:30 hggdh: yea - sorry - cprofitt just let me know 18:30 another call for nominations, I guess? 18:30 I suppose. 18:30 rww: I personaly would go that way. But I wonder if there will be any difference 18:31 what is the potential pool for nominees? 18:31 hggdh: iirc Membership Board had some issues last time with nominations, though different issue 18:32 it is clear, to me, that no current operator wants the hassle. 18:32 cprofitt: Ubuntu Members with competence at IRC, basically 18:32 hggdh: frankly I'd rather have the hassle than have an understaffed IRCC, much as it kills me to say this 18:32 * hggdh secretly rejoices 18:32 hggdh: I assume that IRCC needs to be IRC op 18:32 * Pici too 18:32 so they don't have to have been an IRC moderator in the past... just active on IRC and be an Ubuntu member? 18:32 elfy: no 18:32 elfy: not a requirement 18:33 mmm 18:33 * cprofitt nods 18:33 perhaps if you DO call again make that more obvious - I assumed that to be the case 18:33 Personally I prefer a good balance of current ops and non-op interested people. The latter have a good point of view that's an asset. 18:33 elfy: no. Anyone, as long as (1) is an Ubuntu member; (2) has working knowledge of IRC 18:33 rww: +1 18:33 I can understand it not having to have been an op -- no need to know who to moderate, but at least a person who holds the communities values and is familiar with irc 18:34 cprofitt: exactly 18:34 ok - clear to me now - thanks :) 18:34 so, I guess, the consensus is to send out a new RPN? 18:34 RFN even 18:34 hggdh: if we do another call please let me and Elfy know and the CC can help push some notification out to the community. I wonder if people thought they had to be an irc-op to qualify 18:34 ack, will do 18:35 we can make a concerted effort to get that message out 18:35 #action send out new request for nominations for the IRCC; copy CC on that (and -news) 18:35 * meetingology send out new request for nominations for the IRCC; copy CC on that (and -news) 18:35 with the recent discussion on reinvigorating the community this would be a good opportunity to make sure we are clear when looking for people to contribute in non-technial community areas 18:36 +1 18:36 cprofitt: indeed 18:36 rww: so, you said you had a couple of items 18:37 Other one: what's the current status of call for ops? We have a bunch of pending folks on the LP groups 18:37 oh 18:37 I forget if we accepted any new ops or not recently 18:37 missed that 18:38 I apologize, work is asking for something that I need to attend to here. 18:38 do we need more ops? If so, then we can consider the call of ops season open 18:38 so I'm going to be less vocal than I have been. 18:38 hggdh: I'm not sure. Might be something to ponder on -ops team 18:38 and we can review the current pending requests 18:38 -ops-team ** 18:39 rww: yes, I agree. Here's what I propose: send out an email to -irc requesting feedback on additional ops on the core channels 18:39 any comments on this action? 18:40 wfm 18:40 ^ 18:41 #action send out an email to -irc requesting feedback on additional ops on the core channels 18:41 * meetingology send out an email to -irc requesting feedback on additional ops on the core channels 18:41 done (I mean, the *action* request is done) 18:41 more AOBs, any? 18:41 5 18:41 4 18:41 3 18:42 2 18:42 1 18:42 OK 18:42 #endmeeting