<div>Dave,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for the questions/comments.</div><div><br></div><div>Ideally, as I did say, it would be desirable to have some kind of relationship with the Fedora Project but we do need to remain a 3rd party as we would also like to provide community support and mediation services for several other projects.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Regarding your....comments....about donations, while SILO is for all practical purposes a NPO it will be receiving donations, and I don't see any problem with that. Neither I nor anyone on behalf of SILO asked you or anyone else for donations though, and we never will. That just never happened. We certainly will be set up to receive donations finally within the next week or so though and any money donated will only be spent on SILO activities. I think that's a non-issue unless there's some factor I'm just not aware of. If there are real issues with the fact that we receive donations I'm certainly open to hearing them-- I'm always looking to make this effort better.</div>
<div><br></div><div>About 'threats', I certainly did announce that I would expose, without demands, the actions of an operator that consistently abuses users in some of the fedora-related projects' support channels and various administrative channels after being bullied across several channels during the course of my networking attempts for SILO. I'm familiar with the interaction you're talking about and I can assure you that I was flamed pretty hard before that little explosion, though I did over-react when I realized that it was being overlooked by several other appointed operators. It's no excuse, but, I take bullying very seriously, and I care deeply about what members of the fedora community do when <i>representing</i> it. I also believe that the operators who allow that person's behavior have just as much a role in the bullying as the person engaging in it. I do think that muddles the issue though, and if you'd like more background information I'd be happy to clue you in on more details where appropriate ( <a href="mailto:admin@slackhappy.org">admin@slackhappy.org</a> ). I will say, though, that a common tactic in mitigation is to antagonize an accuser until they react as this provides ammunition for deflection.</div>
<div><br></div><div>You touched on an interesting point, though: If an abusive "operator" (technicality in this case) can publicly wonton users for literally years then won't the IRC-sig, who has existed all this time and watched it happen, be of a mindset that is not receptive to dealing with that behavior? How can they not know? I don't know the answer to that, to be honest, but, I will address those concerns with the CWG as an aside from seeing what kind of relationship can be established between SILO and the IRC sig for a more long term solution. What I mean there is that mediation should be done by a neutral 3rd party to avoid just that kind of <i><u>contamination of values</u></i>. It creates an environment where automatically the user is relaying their complaint to someone whose sole purpose is to deal with their type of issue and won't feel an inherent need to defend their fellow operators or staff. On the flipside, operators would then be dealing with a mediator who is level-headed and calm (too often after a heated scuffle of words, neither party is calm or level headed, this removes that from the mix).</div>
<div><br></div><div>About the registration of ##fedora on Freenode, no, that's not the case-- it's not registered to SILO, but the channel owner there has invited SILO to participate and for the time being it would be a great place to forward users that otherwise would be banned. My preference would be that they are referred to #slackhappy, but, I can certainly see why the Fedora project would want their IRC channel to forward to a channel appropriately titled. We could certainly see if it would be possible to acquire it later in the context of your question.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm sure that no one associated with any fedora support mediums would want users they ban to just not get help. There are always alternative resources, but not usually on the same network in the same medium to much of a degree of reliability. We're all in the business of helping people, that's why these operating systems exist in the first place.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This is the second time since we've discussed this that you've assumed this is a commercial interest. It is not. I hope that I've cleared that up for you.</div><div><br></div><div>You have said that you have a solution that works. I don't believe that's accurate and that's why I'm here, typing this email. The SIG ticket system is managed by the same people engaging in the user abuse, and there are zero policies in place that I'm aware of that describe penalties to operators who engage in that abuse. Those are both problems that need addressed, and I'd like your input on how best SILO can help with that in a way that benefits the <i>users as well as the operators</i>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I like that there are works in progress, I like that there's a bit of oversight for the management of the IRC channels too as that's a one-up in the bigger game of providing support to the users, but these need to be offered by separate entities to really be neutral, don't they? There's an inherent conflict of interest (one that I've personally seen manifested in several fedora channels) when a person resolving a dispute is part of the same entity as one of the people involved in it. I don't know if I can be much clearer about why that's necessary.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We could argue line-by-line about context behind log entries and deeper philosophies behind acting belligerently towards users all day, and even about whether or not operator abuse is a big issue in #fedora or not, but anyone who's been on IRC knows that it's often a rough place to get tech support. It is. That's universal. That said, we could go the extra mile and be a little better than we're expected to be, just because we can be. We're already on that road. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm in it for the users and I'd like to invite you to help me, Dave. I actually like to hear concerns about SILO while I'm fleshing out how we're going to behave as an organization as it lets me correct mistakes, or oversights that I didn't see before. We're going to try to do this, and we'll keep trying until we've got it right in a way that works for you, this board, and the Fedora or SILO users. I hope you keep trying, too.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Whew, that was alot to cover in one post, Dave :) Did you have any other concerns? I'd like to get all of them out now so that I can get it all panned out. I just want you clear on the fact that SILO will be accomodating the Fedora administrative needs with the users' needs as its focus.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Matt Clark<br></div><div><div>Slackhappy International Linux Organization</div>
<div><a href="http://www.slackhappy.org" target="_blank">www.slackhappy.org</a></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Dave Riches <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:david.r@ultracar.co.uk">david.r@ultracar.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"><div class="im">
On 06/01/2011 11:08 AM, Matt Clark wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Hello folks,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have been authorized to speak on behalf of Slackhappy
International Linux Organization (SILO) to explain a little
about what we do and why we're here. I was bouncing around the
various fedora-related channels and it's been suggested to me
that this would be the best place to get a constructive
discussion going about some plans SILO has in the works.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We do have a website, <a href="http://www.slackhappy.org" target="_blank">www.slackhappy.org</a>, but
more directly, SILO is an organization dedicated to improving
the state of support in the various FOSS communities with a
focus on administrative behavior. We believe that the profile
for the general linux user has changed over the last few years
and that so must the tools used to provide support to them.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In short, what we're creating is a common 3rd party to act as
a mediator between the user and operators in IRC support
channels, forum administrators, and any other medium that users
receive linux or FOSS support.</div>
</blockquote></div>
Am I correct in thinking you want the Fedora Project to publicly
endorse SILO, or just the channel operators?<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We do this for free.<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
When did this change? The other day on #fedora-ops you asked for us
to solicit your organisation which received donations. When I asked
where my donation would get spent, it turned out if you received
enough it would be paid to the "reps"<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The ultimate goal is to give users a place to go to when they
feel that an operator is abusive and that no one is addressing
the issue. I think we've all caught an operator on a bad day
(or caught a bad operator on a good day) and there's nothing
more frustrating or degrading to a project's image than the
kinds of things that happen in those situations. I see it as a
'win-win' for everyone that it's addressed.</div>
</blockquote></div>
Not really, I see this as an unqualified "mediation" service which
addresses a non-issue. During my contribution to the project as an
operator on #fedora, I am yet to see an issue (including your own)
that was not resolved by the irc-support-sig...If it ain't broke,
don't fix it?<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since it was decided to take on this task, the most difficult
part has been finding out what we as an organization need to do
to be able to work closely with operators and users in a
community so that we can do what we set out to do. </div>
</blockquote></div>
So far, you actually managed to alienate a large proportion of
#fedora channel operators by threatening them publicly and giving
unsubstantiated report statistics for bad practise despite numerous
requests to provide the information so we can act on it. I'm not
sure how effective a mediation service that doesn't share its
complains/logs would be in the real world as resolving issues.<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> In order for this to work we would need policies that are
universally easy for operators in those channels to work with,
and for users to remedy situations where they feel like they've
been treated unfairly.</div>
</blockquote></div>
the irc-support-sig works hard to put policies and
standard-operating-procedures in place, and publicly available.
Perhaps you could take a look at <a href="https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/" target="_blank">https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/</a><div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> While we're user-oriented, it's also important to work with
the administrators of the projects we try to help if we would
expect any cooperative efforts.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Currently, we're paying alot of attention to #fedora on the
freenode network </div>
</blockquote></div>
possibly a side issue, but you have also obtained ##fedora for your
own purposes?<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>where some ongoing problems seem to need addressed.</div>
</blockquote></div>
I don't see any ongoing, un-addressed issues, perhaps you could
point me to them/provide reports/logs?<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> I think this is the perfect opportunity to start figuring
out how SILO will work. </div>
</blockquote></div>
I'm personally not interested in anyone else's business
opportunities apart from my own, Fedora for me is about freedom, and
I love contributing to fedora in as many ways as I can..I for one
won't contribute to someone else's seemingly commercial project.<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> What kind of policies or arrangements would we need to have
banned users in fedora irc channels be referred to our channel,
and what kind of policies or arrangements would we need to have
to get operators in freenode projects to work with our staff to
mediate problems?</div>
</blockquote></div>
Again, I think this is a non-issue, as we already have a solution
that works...when a user has an issue that cannot be addressed by
the support sig, CWG or board..I would perhaps then consider your
proposals<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I'm aware that there is an IRC sig, and I was referred here
by several when this was discussed. I have quite a few ideas
about implementation of all of this but I didn't want to flood
our introduction with information.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for your time, and I look forward to working with/for
you,</div>
</blockquote></div>
No worries!, and although you won't be working with me personally, I
wish you all the best with your venture :-)<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Matt Clark</div>
<div>Slackhappy International Linux Organization</div>
<div><a href="http://www.slackhappy.org" target="_blank">www.slackhappy.org</a></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
advisory-board mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org">advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board</a><br></blockquote></div><br>