The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
I looked back through past issues on this tracker and found that my experience was not an isolated incident. The operator who was rude to me has had many complaints against them over years. Looking at other issues on the tracker, there are a few other users (I think they're also operators) who also have years of complaints about their abrasive behavior. Occasionally, the reports on the tracker mention racist behavior.
Time and time again, the IRC SIG had a meeting about a reported incident and decided to take no meaningful action against its own operators/regular users. I think it's clear that the IRC SIG is incapable of governing itself and needs outside oversight, or the IRC channel will continue to be a hostile place that reflects poorly on Fedora.
I'm not sure if this is the best place to address this. I found the Community Working Group wiki page but it seems that group hasn't had a meeting in 5 years.
On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 02:00:49PM -0500, Be wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the best place to address this. I found the Community Working Group wiki page but it seems that group hasn't had a meeting in 5 years.
Hello Be. This is a good place to bring this. Fedora users should have a positive experience on IRC. I'll look into it.
Thanks for taking this seriously. I hope we can make the Fedora IRC channels a friendly environment.
I'm not sure if you're watching the IRC SIG ticket, but they will have a meeting at 17:00 UTC on Thursday. I think at least one member of the council who is not part of the IRC SIG should be present.
Thanks to all who attended the Fedora IRC SIG meeting today. Refer back to the SIG Ticket and meeting minutes for more information:
Yes, thank you. I think continued presence from the Council is needed to make sure this actually changes.
On 09/03/2016 03:00 PM, Be wrote:
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
This has been a problem for *YEARS*. I've been through the same exact situation multiple times, I dutifully followed their process of filing a grievance ticket etc. multiple times, and it ended up nowhere.
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/56
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/61
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/62
Good luck to you for trying, but honestly, it's a lost cause. On any Fedora projects I work on particularly websites I am sure to avoid listing that channel or giving it any kind of official blessing, and I also orient the many new contributors I help onboard by warning them to stay away from it.
My life has been much happier and better for never going back there again, and it's shameful that it's continued to operate under the name of Fedora. I lobbied very hard to change the situation back then and got nowhere - there are politics here that prevent any sort of cleanup as far as I can tell. If I had the permissions with freenode, I'd just have the channel completely obliterated.
I do not say *any* of this lightly.
~m
Whoops, this was meant to be an off-list reply, although I stand by my words.
~m
On 09/08/2016 03:47 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/03/2016 03:00 PM, Be wrote:
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
This has been a problem for *YEARS*. I've been through the same exact situation multiple times, I dutifully followed their process of filing a grievance ticket etc. multiple times, and it ended up nowhere.
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/56
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/61
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/62
Good luck to you for trying, but honestly, it's a lost cause. On any Fedora projects I work on particularly websites I am sure to avoid listing that channel or giving it any kind of official blessing, and I also orient the many new contributors I help onboard by warning them to stay away from it.
My life has been much happier and better for never going back there again, and it's shameful that it's continued to operate under the name of Fedora. I lobbied very hard to change the situation back then and got nowhere - there are politics here that prevent any sort of cleanup as far as I can tell. If I had the permissions with freenode, I'd just have the channel completely obliterated.
I do not say *any* of this lightly.
~m _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproj...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
2016-09-08 22:03 GMT+02:00 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
Whoops, this was meant to be an off-list reply, although I stand by my words.
~m
On 09/08/2016 03:47 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/03/2016 03:00 PM, Be wrote:
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
This has been a problem for *YEARS*. I've been through the same exact situation multiple times, I dutifully followed their process of filing a grievance ticket etc. multiple times, and it ended up nowhere.
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/56
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/61
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/62
Good luck to you for trying, but honestly, it's a lost cause. On any Fedora projects I work on particularly websites I am sure to avoid listing that channel or giving it any kind of official blessing, and I also orient the many new contributors I help onboard by warning them to stay away from it.
My life has been much happier and better for never going back there again, and it's shameful that it's continued to operate under the name of Fedora. I lobbied very hard to change the situation back then and got nowhere - there are politics here that prevent any sort of cleanup as far as I can tell. If I had the permissions with freenode, I'd just have the channel completely obliterated.
I do not say *any* of this lightly.
~m _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@ lists.fedoraproject.org
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@ lists.fedoraproject.org
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
No worries, and I think there are many people who think the same about this topic. "friends" is not really present in some users/OPs heads in this channel, and that's sad.
Hi,
I was for a reason present in the meeting where this problem should be solved. Well it was on the end just another farce again.
They all showed their sunny side, if you look not to deep.
Why was a Southern_Gentlemen yelling at me I shall file a ticket, if I have a problem? I tell you, because then his collegues like N3LRX or khaytsus will come and say, it was right what he has done and thats it.
And why did they all so well know, that will be about the following ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/191 ? This ticket is the best example, how some of the ops acting together to harras users. So why is this ticket existing.
A Mr. Ben Williams aka Southern_Gentlemen feels always disturbed if somebody joins one of his preferred IRC chans, and he really threatens people with ban as fast as he can, if the join several times in a short time. I remember very well as I was threatened this way by him for the first time, I was in Brno for an hackfest and I said that loud, if necessary I still know who has said it to me, that I shall that guy not take serious he would be often such a jerk.
So since a while, I live in a country which counts to the third world. Well in general, I have to say internet is here at least in the capital everywhere, but how reliable it is, depends on the provider so at my home I am enforce to use a very bad provider, so I have very often disconnects, sometimes no internet at all and sometimes so slow that you think there is no internet. But I still try to contribute to Fedora as good as I can, I accepting that most live on the other side of the world and stay on into the middle of the night, to participate in meetings and do other things.
There is only one problem, Ben Williams doesnt like when you have several disconnects, he will start threaten you and later on he BANS you from #fedora-ambassadors, #fedora-meeting and #fedora-social.
For the last fine, that is his personal kingdom, several people already left this channel because of his dictatorship in it. And so I am staying away there now.
But being banned from the meeting channel or as FAmSCo member from ambassadors is an outrage. So what did I do, I joined the #fedora-council channel and pinged Nirik and asked for an explanation, I told him I dont want to talk with Williams why he has done that but he brought him in. And he was obvious very happy to seeing that now handled in council channel, away from the normal, file a ticket and the other ops will say I am right solution. So he said there was several people complaining about me, but he could not give me one name who that shall be. Later on he even insulted me in the council channel with saying I would do that intentionally to disconnected. Then he left
But that is not the end, this time there shall be people complaining about me, thats why ticket #191 exists, if you read your logfiles of the council chan a bit, you will find where I telling Nirik to take a look to social, how Ben Williams organizes there that people complain about it.
I would say with showing that kind of behavior he not just violates the CoC of the IRC ops as definitely acts against our foundations.
So therefore I hope that the council takes it more seriously to make the IRC more welcoming
br gnokii
2016-09-08 21:47 GMT+02:00 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
On 09/03/2016 03:00 PM, Be wrote:
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
This has been a problem for *YEARS*. I've been through the same exact situation multiple times, I dutifully followed their process of filing a grievance ticket etc. multiple times, and it ended up nowhere.
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/56
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/61
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/62
Good luck to you for trying, but honestly, it's a lost cause. On any Fedora projects I work on particularly websites I am sure to avoid listing that channel or giving it any kind of official blessing, and I also orient the many new contributors I help onboard by warning them to stay away from it.
My life has been much happier and better for never going back there again, and it's shameful that it's continued to operate under the name of Fedora. I lobbied very hard to change the situation back then and got nowhere - there are politics here that prevent any sort of cleanup as far as I can tell. If I had the permissions with freenode, I'd just have the channel completely obliterated.
I do not say *any* of this lightly.
~m
I stand behind your statement.
May I ask the council to consider this as a project-wide goal: "Put the Friends back in Fedora" A friendlier Fedora community is a key factor to meet our goals.
H.
council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproj...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 01:38:07AM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
2016-09-08 21:47 GMT+02:00 Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org:
On 09/03/2016 03:00 PM, Be wrote:
The culture on the Fedora IRC channels is hostile and unwelcoming. I recently asked for technical help in #fedora and most of the responses were insults. I went to #fedora-ops to report the offending user and was horrified to see that the user is one of the IRC operators. So, I found the link to the IRC issue tracker https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ in the #fedora channel topic and reported my experience at https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192
This has been a problem for *YEARS*. I've been through the same exact situation multiple times, I dutifully followed their process of filing a grievance ticket etc. multiple times, and it ended up nowhere.
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/56
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/61
https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/62
Good luck to you for trying, but honestly, it's a lost cause. On any Fedora projects I work on particularly websites I am sure to avoid listing that channel or giving it any kind of official blessing, and I also orient the many new contributors I help onboard by warning them to stay away from it.
My life has been much happier and better for never going back there again, and it's shameful that it's continued to operate under the name of Fedora. I lobbied very hard to change the situation back then and got nowhere - there are politics here that prevent any sort of cleanup as far as I can tell. If I had the permissions with freenode, I'd just have the channel completely obliterated.
I do not say *any* of this lightly.
I stand behind your statement.
May I ask the council to consider this as a project-wide goal: "Put the Friends back in Fedora" A friendlier Fedora community is a key factor to meet our goals.
The #fedora channel is not a friendly place. We point our new-comers to it but I honestly would prefer to point them to another place because the welcoming there is for the list, harsh, rude and most definitely not family-friendly (which can be a problem in some culture).
There has been other attempts to revise a little the climate on the channel, including from known contributors: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/132 (4 years ago) without much success.
I realize that managing a channel such as #fedora with so many people is a though job and cannot be managed as smaller channel, but I wonder if some of the OPs aren't a little 'burned out' by this duty and maybe renewing the team or part of it would benefit everyone.
Pierre
2016-09-09 10:21 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr:
The #fedora channel is not a friendly place. We point our new-comers to it but I honestly would prefer to point them to another place because the welcoming there is for the list, harsh, rude and most definitely not family-friendly (which can be a problem in some culture).
There has been other attempts to revise a little the climate on the channel, including from known contributors: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/132 (4 years ago) without much success.
I realize that managing a channel such as #fedora with so many people is a though job and cannot be managed as smaller channel, but I wonder if some of the OPs aren't a little 'burned out' by this duty and maybe renewing the team or part of it would benefit everyone.
Pierre
That's a good remark, but still require a Root-Cause-Analysis to prevent that a renewed team burn out too.
H.
I've been lurking in the mailing lists for about 6 years now after an incident I had with a couple people in #fedora while I "myself" was helping people and considering becoming a contributor (a friend of mine was considering joining the design team). After the incident and absolutely nothing done about it we decided that fedora was not the place for either of us at the time.
That said, here's a concern that I have based on something I was told by an op at the time. I was told that #fedora cannot be governed, controlled, or anything other such measure as fedora does not have anything to actually do with that channel. Now I may not be using the right wording here, but along the lines of ownership.
Is that truly the case? If it is, then in my personal opinion nothing will ever change in that channel and for something to change fedora needs to create a separate channel that is fully governed by fedora.
I'm going to look later and see if it was in email that this was said to me. Hopefully if it was I still have it.
On Sep 9, 2016 13:36, "Haïkel" hguemar@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2016-09-09 10:21 GMT+02:00 Pierre-Yves Chibon pingou@pingoured.fr:
The #fedora channel is not a friendly place. We point our new-comers to
it but I
honestly would prefer to point them to another place because the
welcoming there
is for the list, harsh, rude and most definitely not family-friendly
(which can
be a problem in some culture).
There has been other attempts to revise a little the climate on the
channel,
including from known contributors: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/132 (4 years ago) without much success.
I realize that managing a channel such as #fedora with so many people is
a
though job and cannot be managed as smaller channel, but I wonder if
some of the
OPs aren't a little 'burned out' by this duty and maybe renewing the
team or
part of it would benefit everyone.
Pierre
That's a good remark, but still require a Root-Cause-Analysis to prevent that a renewed team burn out too.
H. _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council- discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
On 09/09/2016 02:35 PM, Landor Clark wrote:
I've been lurking in the mailing lists for about 6 years now after an incident I had with a couple people in #fedora while I "myself" was helping people and considering becoming a contributor (a friend of mine was considering joining the design team). After the incident and absolutely nothing done about it we decided that fedora was not the place for either of us at the time.
That said, here's a concern that I have based on something I was told by an op at the time. I was told that #fedora cannot be governed, controlled, or anything other such measure as fedora does not have anything to actually do with that channel. Now I may not be using the right wording here, but along the lines of ownership.
Is that truly the case? If it is, then in my personal opinion nothing will ever change in that channel and for something to change fedora needs to create a separate channel that is fully governed by fedora.
I'm going to look later and see if it was in email that this was said to me. Hopefully if it was I still have it.
I am not sure who told you this, but I do not believe it to be true. According to Freenode policy, single hash channels created with the same names as a project are considered to be owned by that project. If it was decided at any time that the council agreed to do such, they could contact an IRC Cop of Freenode and have the founder information of #fedora changed at-will.
On 09/09/2016 02:41 PM, Striker Leggette wrote:
I am not sure who told you this, but I do not believe it to be true. According to Freenode policy, single hash channels created with the same names as a project are considered to be owned by that project. If it was decided at any time that the council agreed to do such, they could contact an IRC Cop of Freenode and have the founder information of #fedora changed at-will.
#fedora is owned. I'm the "Group Contact" for Fedora on Freenode.
~tom
== Red Hat
It somewhat pains me to read comments like the one Máirín gave, but is sadly true. I have many friends in other channels that were created for the sole purpose of 'rescuing' folks from Fedora who were being bashed bu "upper management". Most of the time when these folks are found out, they are titled as 'witch hunters' by Fedora OPs and are otherwise regarded as troublemakers themselves when they are simply attempting to keep the person who was bashed originally from moving to another distro.
Truthfully, the IRC SIG tickets are not making us any progress except to append and change wording within our code of conduct. Historically, OPs simply received a wrist slap and were sent on their way. It would be very nice to have an actual Fedora authority figure (such as a Council member) to govern the IRC OPs instead of letting us govern ourselves. I think this would generate a very large sigh of relief by most (if not all) of the Fedora IRC community.
I wouldn't be surprised if this thread eventually becomes "lost" like previous reports against the OPs, though I would hope not.
This thread makes me sad too. :(
I think things are (as they usually are) more nuanced than they seem. #fedora is neither a hive of scum and villainy where everyone is rude, no one gets any help and people are kicked out on a whim, nor a paragon of light where everyone is polite and rational.
There's a lot of old historical baggage on all sides.
Thinking about positive steps moving forward, how about anyone interested joins the channel and watches (or joins in helping!) and see first hand what your thoughts are after a while.
It's of course up to the council (or perhaps irc fits better under commops?) if they want to make changes, I only ask that they be discussed in an open and fair manner allowing input from all the folks who have spent many years helping.
kevin
Are the #fedora OPs supposed to have jurisdiction over any #fedora-* channels? Because that really doesn't jibe with how we work, yet gnokii has gotten banned from (amongst others) #fedora-meeting-* because of a #fedora policy that I don't think should apply to other Fedora channels. The ban isn't because of any misbehavior - it's because he doesn't have access to an IRC proxy so he has frequent joins/parts because the internet in his country is really unreliable.
Certainly if, as a project we're interested in increasing our diversity, we should be more understanding of those folks who stay up until 3 AM their time and deal with awful internet service to contribute to Fedora, and not ban them from being able to get their jobs done! To ban someone based on the fact they come from a third world country is problematic on multiple levels, I hope you'd agree.
The thing is, gnokii is a senior, extremely productive member of the design team, and I needed him in a meeting that was held in a #fedora-meeting channel recently and after struggling to get him in there I came to find he had been banned by a #fedora OP. To me, this is completely unacceptable.
Here's a proposal:
#fedora-* channels affiliated with a team should be opped by the admins of the corresponding FAS groups in charge of those teams. Folks who are not active members of those teams should *not* have OP status in those channels. I kind of thought this was how things operated, but apparently not based on how gnokii has been banned. Certainly, if such a ban were instituted in #fedora-design we'd have no designers - #fedora-design is the very first IRC experience most of the designers we recruit have ever had - they don't know anything about nickserv, ops, join/part messages, proxys/bouncers, etc. And they shouldn't have to!
#fedora-meeting-* and other project-wide channels (eg the flock channels) should be OPed by commops. There is no reason #fedora ops should have de facto ops in those channels unless they are engaged in the comm ops team, and sorry to say, I haven't seen any involved in comm ops (please correct me if I'm wrong.)
#fedora - i have no idea what to do about, but let's contain the problem and not let it spread to other parts of the project.
Some suggestions for #fedora:
- My suggestion here would be that if any OP has had multiple complaints filed against them in the ticket system - there's probably been many other CoC violations the victims didn't bother to file - and they really should retire and recover from their burnout before trying again.
- Op status is *not* a status symbol, it's a responsibility, and it seems like a lot of people wield IRC ops not due to any actual personal responsibility but rather because they were around when the Fedora project was in its early days and have held on to it since then - not really a good reason to keep them. It should be more like a relay race baton, not a certificate you hang on your wall forever.
- A suggestion would be to offer ops to top-rated helpers on ask.fpo and make them rotating positions as any other parts of the project (fesco, council, famsco, etc.) are. This would also hopefully help combat burnout by giving overwhelmed ops a e asy way to gracefully bow out without drama or feeling like a quitter or leaving the other opers high and dry without a replacement - just don't run for re-election and let someone else step up.
We do get very positive feedback about users' interactions on ask.fpo and use it as the main support channel we point people to on our websites. The system has built in moderation that allows to keep things more civil than IRC affords.
~m
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:33:07 -0000 Máirín Duffy fedora@linuxgrrl.com wrote:
Are the #fedora OPs supposed to have jurisdiction over any #fedora-* channels?
No. The irc support sig only manages/handles/deals with 4 channels: #fedora, #fedora-ops, #fedora-social, #fedora-unregistered. Nothing else.
Some people involved in the sig may have ops in other channels, but other channels have always been managed by who already has permissions in them along with spot with always can get permissions on any #fedora channel.
Because that really doesn't jibe with how we work, yet gnokii has gotten banned from (amongst others) #fedora-meeting-* because of a #fedora policy that I don't think should apply to other Fedora channels. The ban isn't because of any misbehavior - it's because he doesn't have access to an IRC proxy so he has frequent joins/parts because the internet in his country is really unreliable.
My understanding of events is: Some folks complained that he was bouncing in and out of channel and bothering their meetings.
Ben (aka kk4ewt, Southern_Gentlem) is an op in #fedora-meeting and baned him with this before the ban. Jul 15 20:13:30 <kk4ewt> gnokii, when you get your network fixed let me know
Then there was a bunch of (mis)communication between them. gnokii seems to think Ben is out to get him or something, but I've seen pretty much no evidence of that. In other cases where people have been (temporarily) banned for bouncing too fast they just come back and say "sorry, hopefully it's fixed, can you remove the ban" and the answer is "sure!"
The ban in #fedora-meeting was then removed: Jul 16 12:08:20 * kk4ewt removes ban on $a:gnokii
I don't see any meeting he missed in that less than 24 hour period. (July 15th was a friday and the 16th was saturday).
Certainly if, as a project we're interested in increasing our diversity, we should be more understanding of those folks who stay up until 3 AM their time and deal with awful internet service to contribute to Fedora, and not ban them from being able to get their jobs done! To ban someone based on the fact they come from a third world country is problematic on multiple levels, I hope you'd agree.
Sure, but if they are:
a) not around b) bouncing in and out of channel rapidly
it also makes meetings not so great for the people who are there. But perhaps we should ignore this if causes too much pain for the people bouncing. This case really doesn't seem to happen that often. In a rational world people would just talk and sort this out. ;(
The thing is, gnokii is a senior, extremely productive member of the design team, and I needed him in a meeting that was held in a #fedora-meeting channel recently and after struggling to get him in there I came to find he had been banned by a #fedora OP. To me, this is completely unacceptable.
If this sort of thing happens you can contact any op on the #fedora-meeting channel access list: /cs access #fedora-meeting list The number of bans in that channel over the years is very small though.
Here's a proposal:
#fedora-* channels affiliated with a team should be opped by the admins of the corresponding FAS groups in charge of those teams. Folks who are not active members of those teams should *not* have OP status in those channels. I kind of thought this was how things operated, but apparently not based on how gnokii has been banned. Certainly, if such a ban were instituted in #fedora-design we'd have no designers - #fedora-design is the very first IRC experience most of the designers we recruit have ever had - they don't know anything about nickserv, ops, join/part messages, proxys/bouncers, etc. And they shouldn't have to!
The problem here is that some teams may have no care or knowledge of irc stuff and in fact ops are used so rarely it largely doesn't matter. In these cases I think the minimal set of admin folks (myself, spot, etc) should be able to handle things.
#fedora-meeting-* and other project-wide channels (eg the flock channels) should be OPed by commops. There is no reason #fedora ops should have de facto ops in those channels unless they are engaged in the comm ops team, and sorry to say, I haven't seen any involved in comm ops (please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Sure I guess... but again infrastructure folks are already around most of the time so we are likely to be able to react faster than a specific group that may not have worldwide coverage.
#fedora - i have no idea what to do about, but let's contain the problem and not let it spread to other parts of the project.
Some suggestions for #fedora:
- My suggestion here would be that if any OP has had multiple
complaints filed against them in the ticket system - there's probably been many other CoC violations the victims didn't bother to file - and they really should retire and recover from their burnout before trying again.
- Op status is *not* a status symbol, it's a responsibility, and it
seems like a lot of people wield IRC ops not due to any actual personal responsibility but rather because they were around when the Fedora project was in its early days and have held on to it since then - not really a good reason to keep them. It should be more like a relay race baton, not a certificate you hang on your wall forever.
- A suggestion would be to offer ops to top-rated helpers on ask.fpo
and make them rotating positions as any other parts of the project (fesco, council, famsco, etc.) are. This would also hopefully help combat burnout by giving overwhelmed ops a e asy way to gracefully bow out without drama or feeling like a quitter or leaving the other opers high and dry without a replacement - just don't run for re-election and let someone else step up.
ask and irc are very different worlds and I don't know if there's really much overlap between them. Someone who can moderate a post slowly and deliberately might not be best to react to a spammer or realtime issue on irc.
We do get very positive feedback about users' interactions on ask.fpo and use it as the main support channel we point people to on our websites. The system has built in moderation that allows to keep things more civil than IRC affords.
Apples and oranges I think...
kevin
Hi,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:33:07 -0000 Ben (aka kk4ewt, Southern_Gentlem) is an op in #fedora-meeting and baned him with this before the ban. Jul 15 20:13:30 <kk4ewt> gnokii, when you get your network fixed let me know
Maybe it's a cultural thing on my part, but that reads as a bit passive-aggressive to me.
The only way he could "fix" his network would be to move to another country. Is that a reasonable option? Being in a country where reliable internet is affordable and easy (for the most part) to come by is certainly a position of privilege so I understand not grokking that right away, but if Fedora is to be inclusive and diverse, we should probably be more understanding of these types of situations. If it had been a less-established contributor, they may have felt pretty unwelcome and perhaps not came back. :-/
The ban in #fedora-meeting was then removed: Jul 16 12:08:20 * kk4ewt removes ban on $a:gnokii
I don't see any meeting he missed in that less than 24 hour period. (July 15th was a friday and the 16th was saturday).
The meeting in question was on a Tues or Wed in August IIRC. It may not have been in a -meeting channel, it could have been in -websites or -apps; it was regarding the website. I thought it was in -meeting-* tho.
Sure, but if they are: a) not around b) bouncing in and out of channel rapidly
it also makes meetings not so great for the people who are there.
Sure, if you have a client that has joins/parts turned on and very visible, I could see that being annoying (then again, we have a bot on in most of our channels that by default spews out fedmsg datadumps en masse in the non-meeting channels, and those aren't join/part msgs they are real messages, so what's worse?)
gnokii has been in Cambodia for probably a year now, maybe longer? So it's not like this was a sudden issue necessitating an instant ban to deal with. It's not too hard to get someone's email address using .fasinfo, and sending them a politely-worded message explaining the situation.
But that didn't happen, as I understand it.
To ban someone with a message like, "when you get your network fixed let me know" just doesn't sound like the kind of cool-headed, rational, and confrontation-avoiding strategy I'd prefer to see from someone wielding op status.
But perhaps we should ignore this if causes too much pain for the people bouncing. This case really doesn't seem to happen that often. In a rational world people would just talk and sort this out. ;(
Yeh, if something someone is doing bothers you, it makes sense to talk to them, instead of complaining behind their back.
The problem here is that some teams may have no care or knowledge of irc stuff and in fact ops are used so rarely it largely doesn't matter. In these cases I think the minimal set of admin folks (myself, spot, etc) should be able to handle things.
Sure I guess... but again infrastructure folks are already around most of the time so we are likely to be able to react faster than a specific group that may not have worldwide coverage.
If infrastructure is in charge that's way preferable.
ask and irc are very different worlds and I don't know if there's really much overlap between them. Someone who can moderate a post slowly and deliberately might not be best to react to a spammer or realtime issue on irc.
To be fair, though, I do think reading through some of the controversial things that have popped up over the years, that maybe slower reactions and more deliberation before typing could have avoided a lot of those situations and a lot of the misunderstandings that led to them escalating.
Apples and oranges I think...
I'm not convinced. ask has a lot more affordances, sure, but I think as say facebook when someone makes a post about the NRA or lkml or whatever could all exemplify, people lose their cool in computer mediated communication forms that are less 'live' than IRC.
~m
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:33:38 -0000 Máirín Duffy fedora@linuxgrrl.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:33:07 -0000 Ben (aka kk4ewt, Southern_Gentlem) is an op in #fedora-meeting and baned him with this before the ban. Jul 15 20:13:30 <kk4ewt> gnokii, when you get your network fixed let me know
Maybe it's a cultural thing on my part, but that reads as a bit passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it was intended that way, but yeah, it could be more detailed and neutral.
The only way he could "fix" his network would be to move to another country. Is that a reasonable option? Being in a country where reliable internet is affordable and easy (for the most part) to come by is certainly a position of privilege so I understand not grokking that right away, but if Fedora is to be inclusive and diverse, we should probably be more understanding of these types of situations. If it had been a less-established contributor, they may have felt pretty unwelcome and perhaps not came back. :-/
Well, or setting up a bouncer (there's free ones) or just joining when they are active on the channels they are.
I agree we should be more understanding once we know the situation...
The meeting in question was on a Tues or Wed in August IIRC. It may not have been in a -meeting channel, it could have been in -websites or -apps; it was regarding the website. I thought it was in -meeting-* tho.
As far as I can tell they were only banned in #fedora-meeting and #fedora-social.
Sure, if you have a client that has joins/parts turned on and very visible, I could see that being annoying (then again, we have a bot on in most of our channels that by default spews out fedmsg datadumps en masse in the non-meeting channels, and those aren't join/part msgs they are real messages, so what's worse?)
Well, they provide information that the people in the channels wanted.
gnokii has been in Cambodia for probably a year now, maybe longer? So it's not like this was a sudden issue necessitating an instant ban to deal with. It's not too hard to get someone's email address using .fasinfo, and sending them a politely-worded message explaining the situation.
But that didn't happen, as I understand it.
Indeed.
...snip...
To be fair, though, I do think reading through some of the controversial things that have popped up over the years, that maybe slower reactions and more deliberation before typing could have avoided a lot of those situations and a lot of the misunderstandings that led to them escalating.
Perhaps so, but I think thats always the case.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:54:10 +0200 Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Totally agree with you Máirín.
@kevin: as I said already to Ben, people who get annoyed by bouncing in and out can silent these messages (as I do) and meeting logs don't care about system messages either. So I didn't understand this unfriendly behaviour.
Well, sure they can... but it's not the default in most (all?) clients.
Máirín's proposal also seems good to me, we should at least try this way instead of silent the user (in this specific case be) and pass over it again. I never saw the necessity to OP fedora contributor channels, sometimes discussions go personal, but most contributors know each other, so there is always a line nobody has passed so far.
It's rare to need ops in most Fedora channels, but it does happen. People dropping in spewing racist junk or flooding the channel or deliberately trying to cause problems.
I don't have a specific idea for the #fedora channel, but people who join there often use IRC the first time. Instead of banning people for bouncing in and out, OPs should care about unpolite users or offensive trolls. We need to ban them, not contributors who have problems with their Internet connection.
Sure. (and noting again, this was not #fedora).
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:53:30 +0530 Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we need some new people in IRC SIG who can be spending more time in those channels which comes under them and be more and more communicative to users rather just taking direct actions on those users just because they feel themselves too busy with other tasks.
Sure! Where are these people? ;)
Helping people in IRC can be a pretty thankless job...
kevin
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:00:45AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we need some new people in IRC SIG who can be spending more time in those channels which comes under them and be more and more communicative to users rather just taking direct actions on those users just because they feel themselves too busy with other tasks.
Sure! Where are these people? ;)
Helping people in IRC can be a pretty thankless job...
It is, really is. You will have a bunch of people always contesting a decision you made even if the person you kicked/ban was being insulting or plain out of place.
But you, Kevin, are doing an impressive job at always being welcoming and friendly, so I'm going to say it here and now for all the time I should have and didn't: Thank you :)
Pierre
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 02:33:38 -0000 Máirín Duffy fedora@linuxgrrl.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:33:07 -0000 Ben (aka kk4ewt, Southern_Gentlem) is an op in #fedora-meeting and baned him with this before the ban. Jul 15 20:13:30 <kk4ewt> gnokii, when you get your network fixed let me know
Maybe it's a cultural thing on my part, but that reads as a bit passive-aggressive to me.
I don't think it was intended that way, but yeah, it could be more detailed and neutral.
The only way he could "fix" his network would be to move to another country. Is that a reasonable option? Being in a country where reliable internet is affordable and easy (for the most part) to come by is certainly a position of privilege so I understand not grokking that right away, but if Fedora is to be inclusive and diverse, we should probably be more understanding of these types of situations. If it had been a less-established contributor, they may have felt pretty unwelcome and perhaps not came back. :-/
Well, or setting up a bouncer (there's free ones) or just joining when they are active on the channels they are.
I agree we should be more understanding once we know the situation...
The meeting in question was on a Tues or Wed in August IIRC. It may not have been in a -meeting channel, it could have been in -websites or -apps; it was regarding the website. I thought it was in -meeting-* tho.
As far as I can tell they were only banned in #fedora-meeting and #fedora-social.
Sure, if you have a client that has joins/parts turned on and very visible, I could see that being annoying (then again, we have a bot on in most of our channels that by default spews out fedmsg datadumps en masse in the non-meeting channels, and those aren't join/part msgs they are real messages, so what's worse?)
Well, they provide information that the people in the channels wanted.
gnokii has been in Cambodia for probably a year now, maybe longer? So it's not like this was a sudden issue necessitating an instant ban to deal with. It's not too hard to get someone's email address using .fasinfo, and sending them a politely-worded message explaining the situation.
But that didn't happen, as I understand it.
Indeed.
...snip...
To be fair, though, I do think reading through some of the controversial things that have popped up over the years, that maybe slower reactions and more deliberation before typing could have avoided a lot of those situations and a lot of the misunderstandings that led to them escalating.
Perhaps so, but I think thats always the case.
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 21:54:10 +0200 Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Totally agree with you Máirín.
@kevin: as I said already to Ben, people who get annoyed by bouncing in and out can silent these messages (as I do) and meeting logs don't care about system messages either. So I didn't understand this unfriendly behaviour.
Well, sure they can... but it's not the default in most (all?) clients.
Máirín's proposal also seems good to me, we should at least try this way instead of silent the user (in this specific case be) and pass over it again. I never saw the necessity to OP fedora contributor channels, sometimes discussions go personal, but most contributors know each other, so there is always a line nobody has passed so far.
It's rare to need ops in most Fedora channels, but it does happen. People dropping in spewing racist junk or flooding the channel or deliberately trying to cause problems.
I don't have a specific idea for the #fedora channel, but people who join there often use IRC the first time. Instead of banning people for bouncing in and out, OPs should care about unpolite users or offensive trolls. We need to ban them, not contributors who have problems with their Internet connection.
Sure. (and noting again, this was not #fedora).
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 09:53:30 +0530 Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com wrote:
Maybe we need some new people in IRC SIG who can be spending more time in those channels which comes under them and be more and more communicative to users rather just taking direct actions on those users just because they feel themselves too busy with other tasks.
Sure! Where are these people? ;)
Maybe we can ask on devel/test list for new people interested in becoming a channel operator and helping for users issues.
Helping people in IRC can be a pretty thankless job...
Agree. Thanks to you and all other helpful channel Operators but I still don't think same applies to all the channel operators.
Parag.
Since all of this stink to high heaven of a witch hunt because i banned one person for bouncing for days on end and even tried to contact them. and when i didnt hear from them and they kept bouncing i banned to get their attention to the situation.
now i love how the Friendship Foundation is applied to only certain people. and anyone outside of that group no matter how long they have been an contributor to the project is scum. (This is my feeling on stuff that has been posted and not a single person has even come to me to ask my side of the situation)
Friendship is a 2 way street.
Ben Williams Southern_Gentlem KKEWT jbwillia
This is going to be a productive conversation if we focus on the *actions* being disputed here and not any *people.*
Nobody is saying such-and-such a person is "scum" or anything like that; we are questioning the *actions* that were taken (which a number of folks have attributed to potential burn-out and not ill-intent. It has been acknowledged multiple times having op is a challenge and oftentimes thankless task.)
If anybody involved stands by actions they took that are being contested - completely fine. It is very understandable to take it personally as we are all passionate about what we do, but please do not take the discussion personally. We cannot solve the very real problems under discussion here if things get personal, because that will lead to unnecessary and unproductive escalation.
So my suggestion is please let's drop this part of the thread and move on. Ben, if you have additional data about the situation to provide, please do so, but let's not take this conversation where it's not going to be productive to go.
~m
On 09/13/2016 12:06 PM, Ben Williams wrote:
Since all of this stink to high heaven of a witch hunt because i banned one person for bouncing for days on end and even tried to contact them. and when i didnt hear from them and they kept bouncing i banned to get their attention to the situation.
now i love how the Friendship Foundation is applied to only certain people. and anyone outside of that group no matter how long they have been an contributor to the project is scum. (This is my feeling on stuff that has been posted and not a single person has even come to me to ask my side of the situation)
Friendship is a 2 way street.
Ben Williams Southern_Gentlem KKEWT jbwillia _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproj...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:06:16PM -0400, Ben Williams wrote:
Since all of this stink to high heaven of a witch hunt because i banned one person for bouncing for days on end and even tried to contact them. and when i didnt hear from them and they kept bouncing i banned to get their attention to the situation.
To eventually try to keep the discussion useful, could you maybe tell us how/when (from the top of your mind, no need to go grep logs or anything) you tried to contact gnokii? Was it by IRC? Over email?
I just would like to understand why the attempts to reach him failed and we ended up having to ban someone because of a bad internet connection.
Thanks for your input, I actually thought that it was a pity no other OPs than Kevin were involved in this thread, but then the thought skipped my mind before I could put it in an email, so thanks for jumping in :)
Pierre
On 09/13/2016 01:03 PM, Striker Leggette wrote:
I actually thought that it was a pity no other OPs than Kevin were involved in this thread
I guess I am chopped liver.
Also, as the discussion on this topic in the meeting was pushed to last (and therefore the council had no time to discuss it), I imagine that this will be the first thing on the menu for next Monday's meeting?
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 05:03:11PM -0000, Striker Leggette wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:06:16PM -0400, Ben Williams wrote: I actually thought that it was a pity no other OPs than Kevin were involved in this thread
I guess I am chopped liver.
Oh, sorry, I did not know that you are an OP. That still make you, Kevin and Ben involved only (or am I missing others?) while I believe there are more than 3 OPs on #fedora, no? :)
Pierre
a) person bouncing for months
b) channel members started complaining about his bouncing
c) channel members tried to discussed with person
d) person was asked if he wasnt going to be online to please leave that channel
e) person kept bouncing
f) tried to contact person several times over IRC
g) banned in Social and left message for person to contact me
h)notice same bouncing in #fedora-meeiting
i) banned and left message for person to contact me
j) person finally contacted me and i removed the bans
I always try to follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct
On 09/13/2016 12:42 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:06:16PM -0400, Ben Williams wrote:
Since all of this stink to high heaven of a witch hunt because i banned one person for bouncing for days on end and even tried to contact them. and when i didnt hear from them and they kept bouncing i banned to get their attention to the situation.
To eventually try to keep the discussion useful, could you maybe tell us how/when (from the top of your mind, no need to go grep logs or anything) you tried to contact gnokii? Was it by IRC? Over email?
I just would like to understand why the attempts to reach him failed and we ended up having to ban someone because of a bad internet connection.
Thanks for your input, I actually thought that it was a pity no other OPs than Kevin were involved in this thread, but then the thought skipped my mind before I could put it in an email, so thanks for jumping in :)
Pierre _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/council-discuss@lists.fedoraproj...
The Fedora Project's mission is to lead the advancement of free and open source software and content as a collaborative community.
Right, so if someone is clearly having IRC / network connectivity issues, perhaps trying to contact them via IRC isn't the best way to go? Maybe the policy could be updated to have outreach via something asynchronous like email if their connectivity to IRC is an issue?
It also would make sense as a matter of policy to point them to resources that could help the with the problem, such as the free bouncers that nirik mentioned (I was unaware of these myself.)
~m
On 09/13/2016 01:07 PM, Ben Williams wrote:
a) person bouncing for months
b) channel members started complaining about his bouncing
c) channel members tried to discussed with person
d) person was asked if he wasnt going to be online to please leave that channel
e) person kept bouncing
f) tried to contact person several times over IRC
g) banned in Social and left message for person to contact me
h)notice same bouncing in #fedora-meeiting
i) banned and left message for person to contact me
j) person finally contacted me and i removed the bans
I always try to follow the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct
On Sep 11, 2016 9:33 PM, "Máirín Duffy" fedora@linuxgrrl.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:33:07 -0000 Ben (aka kk4ewt, Southern_Gentlem) is an op in #fedora-meeting and baned him with this before the ban. Jul 15 20:13:30 <kk4ewt> gnokii, when you get your network fixed let me know
Maybe it's a cultural thing on my part, but that reads as a bit
passive-aggressive to me.
The only way he could "fix" his network would be to move to another
country. Is that a reasonable option? <aggressive snip>
I've been told that 'bouncing' disconnects can result from a client trying to simultaneously join too many channels at once - IIRC by RichiH of freenode or another op in an unrelated channel we moderate. I would consider this type of temporary ban for joinspam to be fairly routine across freenode, and because of the technical issues of joining too many channels, it can even help users to successfully connect to the network.
In general I agree that #fedora could be friendlier - but IRC for many people is a place where they can anonymously and offensively troll others. A stern operator position can be crucial to maintaining an effective channel in certain situations.
-- Pete
Some suggestions for #fedora:
- My suggestion here would be that if any OP has had multiple complaints filed against
them in the ticket system - there's probably been many other CoC violations the victims didn't bother to file - and they really should retire and recover from their burnout before trying again.
- Op status is *not* a status symbol, it's a responsibility, and it seems like a lot
of people wield IRC ops not due to any actual personal responsibility but rather because they were around when the Fedora project was in its early days and have held on to it since then - not really a good reason to keep them. It should be more like a relay race baton, not a certificate you hang on your wall forever.
- A suggestion would be to offer ops to top-rated helpers on ask.fpo and make them
rotating positions as any other parts of the project (fesco, council, famsco, etc.) are. This would also hopefully help combat burnout by giving overwhelmed ops a e asy way to gracefully bow out without drama or feeling like a quitter or leaving the other opers high and dry without a replacement - just don't run for re-election and let someone else step up.
We do get very positive feedback about users' interactions on ask.fpo and use it as the main support channel we point people to on our websites. The system has built in moderation that allows to keep things more civil than IRC affords.
~m
+1 to all of this. I don't think that Ask and IRC are so different that it requires different kinds of people to moderate each of them.
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016, at 03:33 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
- A suggestion would be to offer ops to top-rated helpers on ask.fpo and
make them rotating positions as any other parts of the project (fesco, council, famsco, etc.) are. This would also hopefully help combat burnout by giving overwhelmed ops a e asy way to gracefully bow out without drama or feeling like a quitter or leaving the other opers high and dry without a replacement - just don't run for re-election and let someone else step up.
This theme came up a couple of times. It sounds like we need to deal with both mechanical issues (join spam) and CoC style issues (racist trolls).
Instead of thinking of IRC as a separate entity, I think we should give consideration to reforming the group with a more all-encompassing charter. All of our communications methods should be subject to the same guidelines and the same responses.
An issue on ask.fpo, a mailing list, telegram and irc shouldn't get four different responses.
1. Could this group work with or combine with the Diversity or CommOps groups to create a group of people who can step in when something happens and our CoC guidelines are called into question? This would also spread the workload and reduce burnout.
2. On services, like IRC, where we know the FAS ID of every person, let's make it policy that we reach out via at least two communications methods. On other services, we do our best effort toward that goal.
3. Can we become more transparent about bans and the equivalent on other communications methods? Knowing who has been banned, why and what actions were taken in advance is much better than having a slug-fest in tickets.
4. We should have a clear set of guidelines for mechanical issues and a clear document to point people too. Ideally, for those communication methods that support it, we should do something like bounce people to a #fedora-unregistered equivalent so they get a clear prompt in method that something has happened. It can also reinforce the pointer to the documentation.
5. Help the people who do this work by developing a set of stock phrases that can be crafted in advance during a calm moment. These phrases can hopefully have been tested in various parts of the project to try and reduce any misreading by individuals from different cultures. Obviously, we will never have a perfect set of phrases, but it can be a lot easier to respond to someone if you don't have to craft a careful response in the heat of the moment. This will also help make sure that our messaging stays the same.
regards,
bex
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:19:01 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
This theme came up a couple of times. It sounds like we need to deal with both mechanical issues (join spam) and CoC style issues (racist trolls).
Well, and all the other things... people getting upset, people being treated poorly by others, bad advice, disruptive people, etc.
Instead of thinking of IRC as a separate entity, I think we should give consideration to reforming the group with a more all-encompassing charter. All of our communications methods should be subject to the same guidelines and the same responses.
I think thats not a bad idea (in fact I wanted to do this a long time ago), but there's some hurdles to that. At least:
We can get lists of: list moderators, ask moderators, irc operators, but thats not conclusive. Some of those people may not be active, some very helpfull and active people may not be on those lists, some of them may not want to be.
An issue on ask.fpo, a mailing list, telegram and irc shouldn't get four different responses.
Sure, but there's different setups in all of them. Say someone wanted to spew some spam. On ask if it's their first post it would be moderated, the moderators would delete it. No one but them would see it. On a mailing list they would subscribe and post and list moderators would be able to stop them posting again, but everyone would see the post and they would have to talk to the list about it, ask people not to respond, etc. On irc they would be able to keep spewing until someone noticed and quieted them.
- Could this group work with or combine with the Diversity or CommOps
groups to create a group of people who can step in when something happens and our CoC guidelines are called into question? This would also spread the workload and reduce burnout.
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think. People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step in, etc.
- On services, like IRC, where we know the FAS ID of every person,
let's make it policy that we reach out via at least two communications methods. On other services, we do our best effort toward that goal.
We don't know the fas id of everyone. We know it in some cases (where people put their irc nick in their fas account data and it's correct).
- Can we become more transparent about bans and the equivalent on
other communications methods? Knowing who has been banned, why and what actions were taken in advance is much better than having a slug-fest in tickets.
Perhaps. You mean when taking the action? or ?
- We should have a clear set of guidelines for mechanical issues and
a clear document to point people too. Ideally, for those communication methods that support it, we should do something like bounce people to a #fedora-unregistered equivalent so they get a clear prompt in method that something has happened. It can also reinforce the pointer to the documentation.
- Help the people who do this work by developing a set of stock
phrases that can be crafted in advance during a calm moment. These phrases can hopefully have been tested in various parts of the project to try and reduce any misreading by individuals from different cultures. Obviously, we will never have a perfect set of phrases, but it can be a lot easier to respond to someone if you don't have to craft a careful response in the heat of the moment. This will also help make sure that our messaging stays the same.
Sure, we already have that on irc somewhat with bot messages "You have been quieted in the channel because you were disrupting things, please take a break and come back in a little while"
Anyhow, I'm personally not against reorganizing our support setup, but I think we would need to get a bunch of the stakeholders together and come up with some plan/organization to do that.
kevin
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think. People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step in, etc.
Maybe that's because they have had a bad experience first-hand or have been warned to stay away from IRC. Without the lingering threat of being randomly insulted by an operator, I think more contributors active in other parts of Fedora would step up on IRC.
On 15 September 2016 at 14:10, Be be0@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think. People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step in, etc.
Maybe that's because they have had a bad experience first-hand or have been warned to stay away from IRC. Without the lingering threat of being randomly insulted by an operator, I think more contributors active in other parts of Fedora would step up on IRC.
While there will be cases of that, there is also a very real problem with the amount of time, the amount of good bandwidth that IRC seems to require over website and email moderation. I have noticed that a good many of the ask and list moderators are from countries with low bandwidth/high latency links. They can work on ask or lists because it works with the bandwidth they have. Asking them to work on IRC would be a frustrating task because they are either not in the same working timezones as irc is heavily used or that it requires a more continuous network.
In any case, what are people really wanting? What is the solution that is needed? Paid for moderators vs volunteers? Fedora users are picked as a jury to be a moderator for a day? Better guidance on moderation? More people volunteering to be moderators? A truth and reconciliation group? ...
Can we get this moving forward versus just repeating what we all know.. Fedora has a lot of unwelcoming places, and people either make mistakes or just are crappy in general. How do we make those less? Can we even make it less or is this just going to be a Sisyphean task? Because it sure feels like it.
"SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com writes:
SJS> While there will be cases of that, there is also a very real SJS> problem with the amount of time, the amount of good bandwidth that SJS> IRC seems to require over website and email moderation.
I know this is nitpicky, and I apologize, but:
I find that an odd statement given that IRC dates from the time before time and many web sites can be quite heavy. It should actually be very bandwidth-friendly. My client, in a large number of channels and with automatic whois and nick watching and all of that kind of thing running, sees occasional bursts of traffic in the tens of kilo_bits_ per second. Visiting a single ask.fp.o page generates more traffic than IRC does in ten minutes; it takes 50 https requests and nearly 2MB of data. Maybe there's a mobile or plain version I'm missing.
IRC does require a bouncer, though, if your network is so bad that you lose connectivity constantly; otherwise the experience isn't so great and the network sees you come and go. The latter does tend to annoy some people, but I've always thought that those people should just hide join/part events and go on with life. And what I really don't understand is why the one poor person with the bad network who wanted to be involved but kicked out of some channels wasn't just offered a bouncer somewhere. I mean, there's a completely technical solution to that issue which doesn't involve any arguments or feeling-hurting or whatnot. (I'm assuming that didn't happen; if it did and that person refused then that's a different story.)
IRC does require an enormous amount of _personal_ bandwidth though. And it's not just time, but also the capacity for absorbing stress. Since the conversations are real time, you don't generally have luxury of posting a well reasoned response at your leisure. I think that lack of reflection time, coupled with the GIFT (please don't make me expand that) makes IRC such an unpleasant place so much of the time.
That said, #fedora-devel and many of the domain-specific channels like #fedora-kde or #fedora-kernel are pretty much always pleasant. There are many of us who are there and trying to help out when possible, but we just don't have the bandwidth for #fedora. I guess that doesn't really help anything, but if we (or, more properly, the domain-specific channel we're in) were pinged to see if we could drop into #fedora to ask a question, I'm sure some of us would at least try.
- J<
IRC does require an enormous amount of _personal_ bandwidth though. And it's not just time, but also the capacity for absorbing stress. Since the conversations are real time, you don't generally have luxury of posting a well reasoned response at your leisure. I think that lack of reflection time, coupled with the GIFT (please don't make me expand that) makes IRC such an unpleasant place so much of the time.
I'm tired of this being used as an excuse for any bad behavior. Sure, people may occasionally get annoyed and frustrated and that's understandable. But that in no way excuses insulting users.
On 09/15/2016 10:51 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:19:01 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
- Could this group work with or combine with the Diversity or CommOps
groups to create a group of people who can step in when something happens and our CoC guidelines are called into question? This would also spread the workload and reduce burnout.
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think. People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step in, etc.
With regards to this specific point, I think that like with the Infrastructure SOPs, the technical knowledge is a barrier that can be crossed and broken down. I think it would be possible to convert people who are active in IRC and also other places and teach them how to use the commands quickly and easily. For example, even when I'm creating IRC channels for non-Fedora topics, I still refer back to the Fedora Infra SOP on creating a freenode IRC channel. I think having "common" commands for a channel OP to run (temporary bans, full bans, quiets, etc.) in a SOP format would be invaluable to "training" new or interested members who are active in IRC but are unfamiliar with moderation commands.
To also expand on the idea of actions are logged, I think the way the ArchLinux Women community keeps track of actions is a good example. They use a private wiki page visible to operators / admins with a table for every ban / quiet / other action they take against users. The table has fields for who was acted on (nick / NickServ account / hostname / etc.), date and time of action, who issued the action, a comment / explanation by the operator (with what channel it happened in), and lastly any comments on if/when the ban expires or if it is lifted. While it doesn't have to be the wiki, a table-like format or database seems like a good way to keep track of these actions and keep a "trail" of actions that can be referenced. The SpigotMC IRC team also does this, albeit with a Google Drive form.
IMHO think people are focusing on the wrong thing here.
I don't think the problem is that we need more moderators. I think the problem is that we need more friendly, helpful people helping others. I'd be happy to hear ideas on how to grow that pool of people.
kevin
On 09/16/2016 11:04 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
IMHO think people are focusing on the wrong thing here.
I don't think the problem is that we need more moderators. I think the problem is that we need more friendly, helpful people helping others. I'd be happy to hear ideas on how to grow that pool of people.
kevin
One reason there are not as many people that could be in the channel is because others are telling them to steer clear due to the abrasive behavior of some of those that are already in the channel trying to 'help'. A good example can already be found in this thread.
If we can put a stop to the abrasive, abusive, etc. behavior, we can probably begin to gain trust from those with previously negative experiences and the channel will start to gain more helpful folks faster.
#mytwocents
Striker
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:14:43 -0400 Striker Leggette striker@terranforge.com wrote:
On 09/16/2016 11:04 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
IMHO think people are focusing on the wrong thing here.
I don't think the problem is that we need more moderators. I think the problem is that we need more friendly, helpful people helping others. I'd be happy to hear ideas on how to grow that pool of people.
kevin
One reason there are not as many people that could be in the channel is because others are telling them to steer clear due to the abrasive behavior of some of those that are already in the channel trying to 'help'. A good example can already be found in this thread.
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago. Thats not excusing the issue that happened to the Orig poster, but I think that is a much more isolated case than people think.
If we can put a stop to the abrasive, abusive, etc. behavior, we can probably begin to gain trust from those with previously negative experiences and the channel will start to gain more helpful folks faster.
You might think so, but again, look at this thread... there are several people who said they had bad problems 5+ years ago and never want to go back. I did invite members of this list to join and see for themselves how things are these days, but I don't know if anyone took me up on it.
kevin
On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago.
It's still happening, just FYI:
[Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
I think we need to realize that this happens all the time and not just 3+ years ago or during isolated incidents like the one that prompted this thread. While OPs themselves might simply find these types of statements to simply be informative or to "point the user in the right direction", collectively, the statements are abrasive.
Not having any Fedora IRC SIG tickets open for negative feedback does not mean that the negative treatment is not happening.
Striker
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:13:13 -0400 Striker Leggette striker@terranforge.com wrote:
On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago.
It's still happening, just FYI:
[Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
IMHO that is taken out of context.
He was talking to a user who had some particular/interesting security cases that didn't make much sense. They were talking about a hypothetical user in one of those cases, not the person he was talking to. At least thats the way I read it... but I guess I will stop trying to defend anyone and let them do it themselves.
I think we need to realize that this happens all the time and not just 3+ years ago or during isolated incidents like the one that prompted this thread. While OPs themselves might simply find these types of statements to simply be informative or to "point the user in the right direction", collectively, the statements are abrasive.
Not having any Fedora IRC SIG tickets open for negative feedback does not mean that the negative treatment is not happening.
Sure, but I disagree that it's as bad as people make out...
Anyhow, the council is of course free to redo anything they like.
I do hope they will make sure they have sufficient people available if they decide to take over / replace the existing group.
kevin
2016-09-16 19:15 GMT+02:00 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:13:13 -0400 Striker Leggette striker@terranforge.com wrote:
On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago.
It's still happening, just FYI:
[Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
IMHO that is taken out of context.
He was talking to a user who had some particular/interesting security cases that didn't make much sense. They were talking about a hypothetical user in one of those cases, not the person he was talking to. At least thats the way I read it... but I guess I will stop trying to defend anyone and let them do it themselves.
I think we need to realize that this happens all the time and not just 3+ years ago or during isolated incidents like the one that prompted this thread. While OPs themselves might simply find these types of statements to simply be informative or to "point the user in the right direction", collectively, the statements are abrasive.
Not having any Fedora IRC SIG tickets open for negative feedback does not mean that the negative treatment is not happening.
Sure, but I disagree that it's as bad as people make out...
Anyhow, the council is of course free to redo anything they like.
I do hope they will make sure they have sufficient people available if they decide to take over / replace the existing group.
kevin
council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists. fedoraproject.org
Well, the Council will not take over this, but we need to make sure people are not scared and insulted/banned when they join our channels. We have two actual examples, the original poster's one and gnokii's one, and they remember many other similar cases in the last years. Isolated? I don't think so, most of the users don't even know how to file a ticket to bring up the issue, they just go away and never come back. We cannot go over this problem again if we want more contributors, and if needed we should replace the actual OPs with new people who have more entusiasm. Moreover, I don't think contributor specific channels need any OPs, in these channels we have Infra people present and also some team leaders who can easily and very fast bring up a problem to who can take action. IMO we don't need more OPs, the number is fine if they concentrate on the main problems (trolls, offensive people, users violating privacy, etc). We don't need any action from OPs for joining messages due to crappy Internet connections, because who is annoyed from that messages can easily silent them. I don't see any problem, let's not raise walls where we don't need them. Finally, for any action OPs take, they should be polite and without any personal feelings. Specially when they take action against active contributors (FAS helps a lot here, also to OPs), because we risk to loose them.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 06:13 PM, Striker Leggette wrote:
On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago.
It's still happening, just FYI:
[Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
While I would like to see context here, this is the kind of language I would not like to see an OP using. These words sting a lot and are the kinds of things that cause problem. This is pub talk and not the talk I would expect from someone acting on behalf of the project.
Perhaps Souther_Gentlem was having a bad night or otherwise shouldn't have been out "driving" in IRC. But he and everyone on all of our platforms needs to know how to take a night off and recharge.
regards,
bex
I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything bex is saying, fwiw. On Sep 18, 2016 6:34 PM, "Brian Exelbierd" bex@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016, at 06:13 PM, Striker Leggette wrote:
On 09/16/2016 12:05 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, yes, but (aside from the Orig poster) everyone else is basing their information on things that happened many years ago.
It's still happening, just FYI:
[Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:16:26 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> Groan, as always your lack of being responsible comes back to you eventually you can keep this on that you lock yourself out of the box [Thursday, September 15, 2016] [11:17:00 AM EDT] <Southern_Gentlem> we cant fix stupid
While I would like to see context here, this is the kind of language I would not like to see an OP using. These words sting a lot and are the kinds of things that cause problem. This is pub talk and not the talk I would expect from someone acting on behalf of the project.
Perhaps Souther_Gentlem was having a bad night or otherwise shouldn't have been out "driving" in IRC. But he and everyone on all of our platforms needs to know how to take a night off and recharge.
regards,
bex _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists. fedoraproject.org
I don't claim to have any answers to this problem and I am an outsider in the context of administration, continued reading of this thread has brought me to one simple conclusion, this situation needs a radical departure from current norm. As I've stated, I had a problem 6 years ago in that channel, not as a user, as someone willing to help others. That's 6 years. Stephen Smoogen has stated here that this issue has been ongoing for 10+ years. Looking at all the tickets involved regarding the OP that this current discussion started about literally makes me shake my head. It's quite clear that the solutions, if any, prior to this discussion, hasn't worked. In my opinion only a all encompassing definite change will actually correct this, along with the framework for dealing with any future issues that may arise that the steps are well documented so there is no question as to what is needed to be done which hopefully brings and end to all of this.
Earl aka Landor
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016, at 04:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:19:01 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
This theme came up a couple of times. It sounds like we need to deal with both mechanical issues (join spam) and CoC style issues (racist trolls).
Well, and all the other things... people getting upset, people being treated poorly by others, bad advice, disruptive people, etc.
I was using an, albeit extreme, example of a CoC violation. My point was to cover these situations.
Instead of thinking of IRC as a separate entity, I think we should give consideration to reforming the group with a more all-encompassing charter. All of our communications methods should be subject to the same guidelines and the same responses.
I think thats not a bad idea (in fact I wanted to do this a long time ago), but there's some hurdles to that. At least:
We can get lists of: list moderators, ask moderators, irc operators, but thats not conclusive. Some of those people may not be active, some very helpfull and active people may not be on those lists, some of them may not want to be.
Another theme I am seeing over and over again is the idea of our inability to determine who is active and who is not. Frankly, this is a problem that needs to be fixed but one that shouldn't stand in the way of our moving forward with other solutions.
An issue on ask.fpo, a mailing list, telegram and irc shouldn't get four different responses.
Sure, but there's different setups in all of them. Say someone wanted to spew some spam. On ask if it's their first post it would be moderated, the moderators would delete it. No one but them would see it. On a mailing list they would subscribe and post and list moderators would be able to stop them posting again, but everyone would see the post and they would have to talk to the list about it, ask people not to respond, etc. On irc they would be able to keep spewing until someone noticed and quieted them.
The fact that one is a real-time communication method and one is asynchronous shouldn't stop us from having a similar response. It just needs to be a different response timing and possibly format.
- Could this group work with or combine with the Diversity or CommOps
groups to create a group of people who can step in when something happens and our CoC guidelines are called into question? This would also spread the workload and reduce burnout.
Sure, but again the overlap here isn't as high as you might think. People I see on IRC are seldom also active on ask or lists. An ask moderator wouldn't have any idea the irc commands or know when to step in, etc.
One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action reports."
I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
- On services, like IRC, where we know the FAS ID of every person,
let's make it policy that we reach out via at least two communications methods. On other services, we do our best effort toward that goal.
We don't know the fas id of everyone. We know it in some cases (where people put their irc nick in their fas account data and it's correct).
I stand corrected. I was thinking about the nickbot registration and equating it to FAS. You are correct.
- Can we become more transparent about bans and the equivalent on
other communications methods? Knowing who has been banned, why and what actions were taken in advance is much better than having a slug-fest in tickets.
Perhaps. You mean when taking the action? or ?
I mean, I believe that if a ban, for example, is issues, the particulars should be documented somewhere. This way if there is a subsequent problem, it isn't a surprise.
- We should have a clear set of guidelines for mechanical issues and
a clear document to point people too. Ideally, for those communication methods that support it, we should do something like bounce people to a #fedora-unregistered equivalent so they get a clear prompt in method that something has happened. It can also reinforce the pointer to the documentation.
- Help the people who do this work by developing a set of stock
phrases that can be crafted in advance during a calm moment. These phrases can hopefully have been tested in various parts of the project to try and reduce any misreading by individuals from different cultures. Obviously, we will never have a perfect set of phrases, but it can be a lot easier to respond to someone if you don't have to craft a careful response in the heat of the moment. This will also help make sure that our messaging stays the same.
Sure, we already have that on irc somewhat with bot messages "You have been quieted in the channel because you were disrupting things, please take a break and come back in a little while"
Somewhat doesn't seem to be cutting it here. We need to do more of this until it becomes automatic.
Anyhow, I'm personally not against reorganizing our support setup, but I think we would need to get a bunch of the stakeholders together and come up with some plan/organization to do that.
Who do you think needs to be in the meeting. Let's act.
regards,
bex
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:32:22 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action reports."
I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
We recently switched out irc bot over to using ChanTracker: https://github.com/ncoevoet/ChanTracker it keeps track of mode changes, but I don't think it has any easy reporting capability and things can be annotated when it's used.
I guess 'after action' reviews could be helpful, but do we want to call out people again in public? say there was a 15minute quiet for a user, do we want to go over that and note the specific user in public logs and such? I'm good with learning how better to handle things, but wall of shame I am not sure about.
...snip...
I mean, I believe that if a ban, for example, is issues, the particulars should be documented somewhere. This way if there is a subsequent problem, it isn't a surprise.
Sure. As noted above the bot can keep track of time and (optional) annotation. That can be used to look in logs.
...snip...
Anyhow, I'm personally not against reorganizing our support setup, but I think we would need to get a bunch of the stakeholders together and come up with some plan/organization to do that.
Who do you think needs to be in the meeting. Let's act.
Well, I guess it depends on how the council wants to move here.
a) If changes are made via the existing irc support sig, the process would be to file a ticket on their trac, discuss it at the next meeting, vote on it the meeting after that.
or
b) if the council wants to just completely reorg things I suppose they would want a council ticket with particulars and meet and discuss it and then take whatever action they wish. Hopefully existing folks in the irc support sig and other interested parties would participate in the reorg as they wish.
kevin
On 09/19/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:32:22 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action reports."
I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
We recently switched out irc bot over to using ChanTracker: https://github.com/ncoevoet/ChanTracker it keeps track of mode changes, but I don't think it has any easy reporting capability and things can be annotated when it's used.
I guess 'after action' reviews could be helpful, but do we want to call out people again in public? say there was a 15minute quiet for a user, do we want to go over that and note the specific user in public logs and such? I'm good with learning how better to handle things, but wall of shame I am not sure about.
As implemented elsewhere, it should be a private page maybe on the wiki with access allowed only for current ops. So it wouldn't be a public wall of shame.
~m
On 09/20/2016 10:19 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/19/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:32:22 +0200 Brian Exelbierd bex@pobox.com wrote:
One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action reports."
I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
We recently switched out irc bot over to using ChanTracker: https://github.com/ncoevoet/ChanTracker it keeps track of mode changes, but I don't think it has any easy reporting capability and things can be annotated when it's used.
I guess 'after action' reviews could be helpful, but do we want to call out people again in public? say there was a 15minute quiet for a user, do we want to go over that and note the specific user in public logs and such? I'm good with learning how better to handle things, but wall of shame I am not sure about.
As implemented elsewhere, it should be a private page maybe on the wiki with access allowed only for current ops. So it wouldn't be a public wall of shame.
~m
Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I also meant that the wiki page / "place of reporting" would be a private page only visible to channel operators / SIG members and other relevant people. This has worked well so far for the ArchWomen community as far as I'm aware.
Well, I guess it depends on how the council wants to move here.
a) If changes are made via the existing irc support sig, the process would be to file a ticket on their trac, discuss it at the next meeting, vote on it the meeting after that.
Considering this has not resulted in meaningful change already, I don't see any good reason to believe it would this time. It has been weeks since the original incident that started this thread and still all that has changed is that some words were changed on a webpage. No meaningful action was taken.
b) if the council wants to just completely reorg things I suppose they would want a council ticket with particulars and meet and discuss it and then take whatever action they wish. Hopefully existing folks in the irc support sig and other interested parties would participate in the reorg as they wish.
kevin
Council ticket filed: https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71
On 28 September 2016 at 12:20, Be be0@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Well, I guess it depends on how the council wants to move here.
a) If changes are made via the existing irc support sig, the process would be to file a ticket on their trac, discuss it at the next meeting, vote on it the meeting after that.
Considering this has not resulted in meaningful change already, I don't see any good reason to believe it would this time. It has been weeks since the original incident that started this thread and still all that has changed is that some words were changed on a webpage. No meaningful action was taken.
Please define what you mean by "meaningful action" because it is not self-evident and it is better to be clear at the beginning of what is wanted versus ending up where everyone feels the other side is being passive aggressive to each other.
b) if the council wants to just completely reorg things I suppose they would want a council ticket with particulars and meet and discuss it and then take whatever action they wish. Hopefully existing folks in the irc support sig and other interested parties would participate in the reorg as they wish.
kevin
Council ticket filed: https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/71 _______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
I think I was quite clear on the ticket and the meeting discussing it that a minimum for meaningful action would be a temporary removal of OP privileges with the understanding that further offenses would result in a permanent removal of OP privileges. IMO it should go beyond OP privileges and include at least a temporary ban from the Fedora channels. In the meeting, the OPs refused to take any action against the offending user without hearing from them. They have had weeks to respond and have not. My last question on the ticket (https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/ticket/192 ) remains unanswered.
On 9 September 2016 at 14:14, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
This thread makes me sad too. :(
I think things are (as they usually are) more nuanced than they seem. #fedora is neither a hive of scum and villainy where everyone is rude, no one gets any help and people are kicked out on a whim, nor a paragon of light where everyone is polite and rational.
There's a lot of old historical baggage on all sides.
We have 10+ years of this discussion coming up over and over again.. with a lot of historical baggage and strong opinions have been formed. Our 'fixes' have never been good either because we tend to take the easiest, nicest solution over and over again. The people feeling slighted on boths sides do a lot of good work in various places and we try to find solutions which make all of them happy or at least equally unhappy.
At this point we should all realize that no simple or quick fixes are going to work. If we want Fedora to actually be a Fun/Friendly place we really need to focus on that more than we focus on Features and First. Features fall out of the sky, First comes to the person who gets it integrated quickest.. any 4 person "we made an OS" team seem to be able to do that monthly.
Being Fun and Friendly takes constant work.. especially when many of us are on the autistic spectrum or have other social disabilities which make human interaction insane. If not, we need to be honest and drop them.. because this every year grindstone has worn me to dust..
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Be -
Be -
Ben Williams -
Brian Exelbierd -
Greg DeKoenigsberg -
Haïkel -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Justin W. Flory -
Kevin Fenzi -
Landor Clark -
Matthew Miller -
Máirín Duffy -
Máirín Duffy -
Parag Nemade -
Pete Travis -
Pierre-Yves Chibon -
Robert Mayr -
Sirko Kemter -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Striker Leggette -
Tom Callaway