Ubuntu Opinions

[Joseph Price]

> nobody needs to complain about it being an elitist channel.

Wow.. If there was a definition of elitism, i wouldn't be surprised to
find a description of a +m channel full of  +o ops, with the ops
having the decision about who gets to speak.

What is wrong with idle chit chat?

Ops are not special. We are all users of the ubuntu channels.

On 2/2/10, Michael Lustfield <mtecknology at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> I'm having a few issues with this discussion as a whole... I know where
> non-op opinions usually wind up so if any ops agree, feel free to
> repeat.
>
> This thread is on ubuntu-irc@ so why doesn't discussing the thread
> occur on #ubuntu-irc.
>
> #ubuntu-irc is a great place for ops of all channels to discuss things.
>
> #ubuntu-ops should be used:
>   for issue resolution of core channels only
>
> #ubuntu-irc should be used:
>   to request cloaks
>   for op related discussions
>   information about possible issues (paraphrase what winds up in -ops)
>   for ops from other non-core channels to discuss things
>
> My opinion of #ubuntu-ops is:
>   /mode #ubuntu-ops +mz
>   /mode ops +o
>   /mode bots +o
>
> It's a very simple solution that offers the following:
>   Let users idle in there for whatever purpose they see fit:
>     Mention something quickly to ops
>       No need for the annoying !ops call
>       Which seems to encourage some spammers when there is a delay in
>     Mention something going on in a discussion that they feel they can
>       contribute to
>   Anyone going in there for a resolution will not be met with non-op
> discussion
>     Users can contribute to discussions without being rude to the one
>       being discussed
>   No idle chit-chat would take place
>   If a discussion should be open then -m is easy enough to apply
>   If somebody comes in to dispute anything only ops will see the
>     communication between that user; others will only see what ops say
>   Nobody needs to complain about it being an elitist channel.
>   If you really need a private channel you can still do so
>     (/join #ubuntu-dispute-random; /mode +i; /invite user&staff)
>   It would encourage ops to handle things well with the community watching
>
> #ubuntu-irc is severely underutilized.
> It is meant to be multi-lingual but it is not
> Other -op channels in the #ubuntu namespace should probably make an
>   attempt to pipe discussions here
> A little odd, but I think non-ubots should be able to exist in here
> Perhaps only if the ircteam user is permitted some access/control
>   to the bot and possibly the channel
> We should us this as a ban forward channel
>   I've done this in the past and it worked well because other ops could
>     pitch in their opinions
>
> An ops lounge:
>   I hate this idea.
>   If ops want a place to hang out and chatter then they should use
> #ubuntu-offtopic
>   If -offtopic is to chaotic for general chit chat among ops then this
>     needs to be fixed in -offtopic, not an additional channel
>
> #ubuntu-offtopic:
>   This channel is so ugly that public logging is strongly discouraged.
>   Many ops even feel that this channel is in a horrible state
>   Even some Freenode staff feels the channel should be pinched
>   Only a few ops like the channel and few of those are regulars
>   I agree that the channel should be pinched
>
> the alternative..
>
> #ubuntu-chat:
>   For ubuntu related chatter
>   An ops lounge (let ops stay +v here)
>   Tech related chatter
>   Allow little bits of support and direction
>     Let the user know they shouldn't expect support but some may be
>       willing to offer it here
>   If something is off-the-wall in here it should be redirected to #defocus
>
> #defocus:
>   Most conversations currently in #ubuntu-offtopic belong in #defocus
>   If somebody doesn't like the new rule of #ubuntu-chat, let them go
> here
>
>
> Obviously my opinions can be built on to make them better. If your
> opinion is simply an outright "no" then perhaps you should re-evaluate
> where your opinion is coming from. Are you that deeply opposed to
> change that any alteration is horrible? If you disagree with something,
> please contribute to why it's a bad idea. Perhaps offer a suggestion to
> alter this so it makes better sense.
>
> I've said all of this before and other ops have mentioned it. It seems
> to come down to many people not wanting to put an effort in for a
> change and just opposing it for that reason.
>
> This is a big list of random thoughts. If you reply to just one piece
> please at least keep all relevant pieces with it. I have a feeling how
> this will message will wind up being handled but I hope that it can
> spark something good to happen anyway.
>
> --
> Michael Lustfield
> Kalliki Software
>
> Network and Systems Administrator
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device