re: "Getting the ball rolling.."

[warren]

While I realize there's a large possibility this will simply be ignored
by anyone in a position to do anything about it, I'm starting the thread
anyway so that these things are said, there's a record of it and for
anyone else who wants to point out similar problems in the future to
reference back to.

 There are many large holes in the Fedora community and, in particular,
its largely improperly regulated IRC presence. There is a quote which
has been attributed to Stan Lee and Franklin Roosevelt "With power,
comes great responsibility". Keeping this in mind, within any
organization there will be obvious reasons for some to have more power
than others in certain affairs, this is logical and understandable to
maintain sane continuity. It's also reasonable to assume that those with
these various powers have the responsibility to exercise said powers
effectively, intelligently and fairly. This is not and simply has not
been the case in either the #fedora-* or #fedora-unity* channels. This
is an opinion shared by many intelligent people who have passed through
the doors of both organizations for some time. It's certainly a problem
and a concern that seems to be regularly brushed under the rug for fear
of stepping on someones ego, threatening the power structure, fear of
change or lack of knowing exactly what to do or how to implement to
change it.

 To me and others that share this opinion is it of paramount importance
to find a solution and apply it asap. I do realize that the main point
of #fedora is not to make users happy or implement any certain policy,
but to provide a diverse testing platform for a commercial product
(RHEL) that only a select few in the community actually benefit from
financially. While this end result won't change, the support policy in
#fedora must. I'm not one for mincing words or pretending everything is
"ok" when it clearly is not. I'm as likely to admit my own mistakes,
errors and frustrated or bad behavior as I am to point it out directly
and curtly in others. I also don't expect my ideas or opinions to be
blindly accepted or considered without thoughtful community input, but I
also don't expect to be wholesale ignored when my concerns are voiced
either, as has been the case in the past.

 The issues with Khaystus and just brushing it under the carpet and told
to "ignore it" is just simply not an option in my opinion, it's
irresponsible and shows a lack of leadership and responsibility all
around. It's childish and pointless to carry on an issue and refuse to
deal with it for years on end. Ignoring it won't make it go away or
change the behaviors which led to it in the first place. If I were a
normal user that never contributed my time or money, only complained and
never showed any signs of thoughtfulness or change, I could understand
simply ignoring me and moving on. Instead I'm insisting that the issues
be addressed in a reasonable and peaceful manner. This too seems to be
widely unaccepted in favor of just ignoring me instead and just keeping
things "business-as-usual". I'm not attacking anyone in particular, even
Khaystus, I *still* have nothing against him other than his seeming need
to hold on to whatever his grudge is with me and even more so by the
community of otherwise intelligent people that tolerate that behavior in
someone who is supposed to be a mediator. To me, it's akin to asking
someone who can't find a job to help you find one, it simply doesn't
make sense.

 I have a verified history in the Fedora community from my financial and
time support, howtos, and getting others involved that goes back to the
days of #redhat where |jef| (spoleeba) was a regular op. I also have a
history of frustrated and upset or abusive behavior in #fedora at times.
Frustrated because I do feel ignored and that things are not changing
and have not changed in this arena for some time. I don't think my
concerns are completely out in left field or unsubstantiated because I
have talked with other respected members who feel the same exact way.

 Ultimately, I love Fedora and Red Hat and I want to be a part of a
community that is self-responsible and teaches that behavior to others.
Some ways I see accomplishing this is in the areas of problem solving
techniques, research skills and best practices and methods so that, as a
group, we can all "teach a man to fish" so they may feel empowered to
contribute back to the community and feel supported in that effort while
maintaining a professional and helpful approach. This is something that
everyone can and should be taking back into their normal "real" lives.
In this vein of thinking I propose the following not-so-easy
undertakings to start the ball rolling:

1.. Full restructuring of the IRC help forum and a written clear policy
as to how this will be accomplished, including:
 a. Publicly accessible "channel behavior guidelines" which all must
read and follow, regardless of "status".
 b. Agreed central help resources, forums, FP.org wiki, and other tools
to present a more unified public support structure.
 c. Abuse/sanction policies

 I believe I have the desire, time, skills, etc to help in this area
which would put an abrupt halt to most frustrations felt on my part.
Having said all this, words are cheap and actions are what give us
something worth appreciating and feeling we're contributing towards
something worthwhile. That being said, I'll await to see if I'm once
again ignored or if these concerns are taken seriously this time.

Regards,

-Warren (opsec/zodiac)

----------------------------------------

Below is my posting to the fedora-ops list about 1.5 years ago when
Evilbob had nominated me for ops in #fedora and I was asked to comment.
Since that time no one has successfully been added to the #fedora ops
list to the best of my knowledge, though not without several attempted
nominations of others being shot down as well.

.-------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Re: Plan for tomorrow's irc-support-sig meeting (2010-08-26)
Date:     Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:20:51 -0600
From:     warren <warren(a)fedoraos.org&gt;
Reply-To:     warren(a)fedoraos.org
To:     List for the IRC support SIG
<irc-support-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;



Hello,

I'm not sure I'll be able to or if I'm required to attend this meeting
at 16:00UTC/09:00PST. But I've written my
feelings and ideas below pertaining to the topic(s) outlined by Nirik
(Kevin).

I've been with the Fedora Project from the day the door opened. I used
to help daily with
either howtos, direct channel help or providing resources. After
prolonged feelings of frustration and helplessness
and feeling there was little I could do anymore to help, I've been
fairly inactive in #fedora channels. While I've
certainly not been a model member of the community at times, I have
thought a lot about why this is and discussed it
privately with a few of the people named below and others.

These are a few things I've noticed in these past 5 or so years...

Being an operator to me means simply that you have control over your
irrational self and your emotions,
that you've developed the skills to not take things personally, view
situations from an objective perspective
and act with fairness and an unbiased personal attitude consistently.

Being an operator gives a person a certain power, which most will end up
abusing in some way. Being an operator comes with a responsibility and,
in my opinion, is not for "honorary" or similar purposes. Being an
operator should *require* regular active participation, management and
discussions on improvement, delegation/completion of tasks, progress
reports on current projects. Power for the sake of having power seems a
frivolous trinket to me.

My personal list of those I have seen truly have what it takes to be an
operator anywhere:
anvil, zcat, nirik, mharris, jef (spoleeba), che, damaestro, kanarip,
ivazquez, mutk, sonar_guy

If I've excluded someone I've either forgotten them (as I went by
memory) or they don't meet the above criteria.
I don't have anything against anyone involved with or visiting the
channel(s), this includes khaystus and thomasj who seem to have personal
vendettas against me. That being said, all operators have valid ideas
and opinions as well which should always be considered by the group.

#fedora -
In this channel I see that on-topic chatter should be enforced fairly
regularly
and with the least amount of noise as possible to accomplish the goals
below.
In fairness to all there should also be a set amount of acceptable
"noobism" before it's sent elsewhere for a while.

To help end users:

1. Become more responsible user (teach a man to fish)
2. Address technical issues in a logical and sane process
3. Help them file bug reports
4. Help them become more involved in the community

#fedora-social -
the only "rules" that seem to be necessary are ones pertaining to spam,
or otherwise
making the channel unusable. discussing *any* topic should not be off
topic or banned.
everyone has some ideas or many that are going to be received by someone
negatively,
this is simply unavoidable. the only logical course of action is the use
of personal /ignore
lists when we are that annoyed by someone (excluding ops, as they do no
have this luxury).
However, Freenode guidelines should also be followed.

1. All off topic material in #fedora
2. Philosophical discussion
3. Ranting, complaining, venting (including topics which may be
offensive to some).
4. Personal/public "how's it going" chatting

Operator proposal:

1. Review the current operator list define a list of duties, goals, etc
for operators and fill them.
2. Have an easily accessible/viewable list that outlines each operator
and their duties or contribution(s)
3. Have weekly/bi-weekly logged meetings regarding projects, solutions,
proposals, duties, etc
4. Periodic collective reviews of channel bans, problem users, operator
duties, etc

-Warren (opsec/zodiac)

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
| Here's what I have for an agenda for tomorrow's meeting, which will be
| held at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
|
| Feel free to reply to this with additional topics, or bring them up in
| the "open floor" section of the meeting.
|
| #topic Week in review
| http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html
| #topic should we add any new ops now?
| #topic how should new ops be nominated?
| #topic we need a rule about how long an op can be inactive
| #topic thomasj be removed from op status because of his inactivity
| #topic all #fedora ops be removed from op status in #fedora-social
| #topic SIG lead be elected and have a set term
| #topic fcami nomination
| #topic opsec nomination
| #topic trac instance setup
| #topic Open Floor
|
| kevin
|
| -------------------------
|
| _______________________________________________
| irc-support-sig mailing list
| irc-support-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
| https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-support-sig

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:52:40 -0800
warren <warren(a)centoshelp.org&gt; wrote:

...snip...

>   Ultimately, I love Fedora and Red Hat and I want to be a part of a
>  community that is self-responsible and teaches that behavior to
>  others. Some ways I see accomplishing this is in the areas of problem
>  solving techniques, research skills and best practices and methods so
>  that, as a group, we can all "teach a man to fish" so they may feel
>  empowered to contribute back to the community and feel supported in
>  that effort while maintaining a professional and helpful approach.
>  This is something that everyone can and should be taking back into
>  their normal "real" lives. 
Great. I agree. 

>   In this vein of thinking I propose the
>  following not-so-easy undertakings to start the ball rolling:
>  
>  1.. Full restructuring of the IRC help forum and a written clear
>  policy as to how this will be accomplished, including:
>   a. Publicly accessible "channel behavior guidelines" which all must
>  read and follow, regardless of "status". 
I'd be ok with that if we can draft a guideline like that we could
reach consensus on. Any ideas what you would like it to contain? 
It's hard to make a document that lists everything anyone could do. 

>   b. Agreed central help resources, forums, FP.org wiki, and other
>  tools to present a more unified public support structure. 
Also sounds good to me. I think in general this pretty much already
happens. fedorasolved, fedora wiki are the vast majority of things used
by everyone but new people. Sometimes there are other links that are
sane from random other sites. Sometimes new people drop in and send
links to old/bad/horrible info. 

>   c. Abuse/sanction policies 
Again, I would be fine with that if we could draft and agree on some. 
I think its pretty hard to do this with a support medium, because so
much of it's subjective as well as the fact that we have not too many
possible options here: a) warn, b) ban/remove for various times, c)
remove operator or helper status.

Could you provide some examples of what you might like to see here?

I think we somewhat went down this road with: 

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_started_with_IRC_support
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Participants
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_helpers_code_of_conduct
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Channel_FAQ

But thats all incomplete and not really where it's too great. 

>   I believe I have the desire, time, skills, etc to help in this area
>  which would put an abrupt halt to most frustrations felt on my part.
>  Having said all this, words are cheap and actions are what give us
>  something worth appreciating and feeling we're contributing towards
>  something worthwhile. That being said, I'll await to see if I'm once
>  again ignored or if these concerns are taken seriously this time. 
I'd be happy for you to work on the above... I think it would need lots
of feedback and we would not implement anything until we reached some
kind of consensus that it was ready to go. 

Perhaps other folks would be willing to assist? I'd be happy to provide
feedback, but I've been busy of late, so don't know if I can help in the
initial drafting process. I would stress that it would be good to share
progress early and often so everyone can provide feedback. 

Those are my initial thoughts. Perhaps others will chime in. 

kevin

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[warren]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kevin,

 Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as crystal
clear as possible) before we even go any further.

 1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and definitely not
something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle feathers because things
*will* change if this path is taken. You know as well as I do that
change is most often not well accepted, regardless of intent or need.
I do however agree that everything should be put to a vote, each item
clearly stated, understood and voted for in a peer-viewable and
organized manner. i.e. not hidden, obfuscated or obscured in any way.
 
 2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even reply,
save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired back
negatively based on who I am, and not the content or context of the
original email to this thread without the benefit of doubt or
clarification that he understood what he thought he did. Granted, I
should not have replied at all to him based on that alone. It seems we
were both ignorant and still have work to do.

 3. There are some issues with both FedoraProject.org and
FedoraUnity.org pertaining directly to #fedora* IRC channels (I'll be
reading the links you sent me later this evening, however I think I
may have been the original author of at least one of them although
Sonar_Guy posted it on my behalf).
    a. FedoraProject - Who is in control of #fedora* it's policies,
procedures and direction?
    b. FedoraUnity - Sadly, this project/group has never been well
organized in any sane or official fashion, has only one person in
control of the domains / structure & organization of content /
top-level website CMS configuration which has caused friction between
many (who I will not name but let them make their own statements), is
not an official part of the FedoraProject and therefore can do
"whatever" without any direct oversight or consequence by the
FedoraProject. I've heard before on multiple occasions "No one can
make any top level changes because it's been so highly customized none
of us even know where to begin." Which I've seen myself having paid
the hosting bill for a few years and helping manage aspects of the
Zope/Plone website which is now horribly out of date.

 4. The "good ol' boy" club attitude, looking the other way at bad
behavior simply based on who offender is, what feet might be stepped
on, who might be offended, etc rather than the actual behavior itself
and whether it's acceptable. People concerned with maintaining power,
driving the direction of things or stunting changes simply to control
them have questionable intentions in my opinion. It should not matter
if it's a channel op or someone who's just come in for the first time.

 5. Anyone not currently active on such a regular basis as required by
the task they are in control of should be required to hand over the
reigns to someone who is active and qualified for the task. You don't
take on tasks or responsibilities that require ongoing attention then
neglect or abandon them and perform them whenever it suits your fancy.
This goes for everyone from ops to website maintainers, program
coordinators, etc, really any job that requires regular attention.
This is how things fall this badly into disrepair in the first place.

 6. As for dealing with users posting outdated, false, misleading or
outright bad info, this is why I propose a unified help front that is
100% in control of the FedoraProject. Sending people to the
FedoraProject Wiki for one thing, FedoraSolved for another,
FedoraForum for yet another.. It's confusing and shows discontinuity
to the new and existing users whether they realize it consciously or
subconsciously. If there was a unified front and the channel policy
was only to send people to these help resources it would flow much
more smoothly. Please see #wordpress wordpress.org and/or talk to
Freenode IRC operator Sivel for examples on how this might be
accomplished.

 Again, I have lots of valid ideas and possible solutions for much of
the above but yelling in an empty auditorium won't get anyone
anywhere. If Fedora is to be the "best" in its product offering,
support and general appeal then the work to this end never stops. The
above items are clear indications to me and others in the community
where change is badly needed. It's certainly possible, the only real
question is if anyone else is willing to do the heavy lifting.

Thanks for your time,
- -Warren

On 12/02/2011 03:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:52:40 -0800 warren
> <warren(a)centoshelp.org&gt;
>  wrote:
>
>  ...snip...
>
> > Ultimately, I love Fedora and Red Hat and I want to be a part of
> > a community that is self-responsible and teaches that behavior
> > to others. Some ways I see accomplishing this is in the areas of
> > problem solving techniques, research skills and best practices
> > and methods so that, as a group, we can all "teach a man to fish"
> > so they may feel empowered to contribute back to the community
> > and feel supported in that effort while maintaining a
> > professional and helpful approach. This is something that
> > everyone can and should be taking back into their normal "real"
> > lives.
>
>  Great. I agree.
>
> > In this vein of thinking I propose the following not-so-easy
> > undertakings to start the ball rolling:
> >
> > 1.. Full restructuring of the IRC help forum and a written clear
> > policy as to how this will be accomplished, including: a.
> > Publicly accessible "channel behavior guidelines" which all must
> > read and follow, regardless of "status".
>
>  I'd be ok with that if we can draft a guideline like that we could
>  reach consensus on. Any ideas what you would like it to contain?
>  It's hard to make a document that lists everything anyone could do.
>
>
> > b. Agreed central help resources, forums, FP.org wiki, and other
> > tools to present a more unified public support structure.
>
>  Also sounds good to me. I think in general this pretty much
>  already happens. fedorasolved, fedora wiki are the vast majority of
>  things used by everyone but new people. Sometimes there are other
>  links that are sane from random other sites. Sometimes new people
>  drop in and send links to old/bad/horrible info.
>
> > c. Abuse/sanction policies
>
>  Again, I would be fine with that if we could draft and agree on
>  some. I think its pretty hard to do this with a support medium,
>  because so much of it's subjective as well as the fact that we have
>  not too many possible options here: a) warn, b) ban/remove for
>  various times, c) remove operator or helper status.
>
>  Could you provide some examples of what you might like to see
>  here?
>
>  I think we somewhat went down this road with:
>
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_started_with_IRC_support
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Participants
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_helpers_code_of_conduct
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Channel_FAQ
>
>  But thats all incomplete and not really where it's too great.
>
> > I believe I have the desire, time, skills, etc to help in this
> > area which would put an abrupt halt to most frustrations felt on
> > my part. Having said all this, words are cheap and actions are
> > what give us something worth appreciating and feeling we're
> > contributing towards something worthwhile. That being said, I'll
> > await to see if I'm once again ignored or if these concerns are
> > taken seriously this time.
>
>  I'd be happy for you to work on the above... I think it would need
>  lots of feedback and we would not implement anything until we
>  reached some kind of consensus that it was ready to go.
>
>  Perhaps other folks would be willing to assist? I'd be happy to
>  provide feedback, but I've been busy of late, so don't know if I
>  can help in the initial drafting process. I would stress that it
>  would be good to share progress early and often so everyone can
>  provide feedback.
>
>  Those are my initial thoughts. Perhaps others will chime in.
>
>  kevin
>
>
>  _______________________________________________ irc-support-sig
>  mailing list irc-support-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-support-sig
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk7Zll8ACgkQI5ZhoGXYrD4uWwCeNY774EWjg09L/0E2Oy+k69dE
> QHAAniELc8TbHUHgaIq8dM+Ep1bnJxoP
> =NQjT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[David Riches]

On 12/03/2011 03:24 AM, warren wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Kevin,
>
>   Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as crystal
>  clear as possible) before we even go any further.
>
>   1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and definitely not
>  something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle feathers because things
>  *will* change if this path is taken. You know as well as I do that
>  change is most often not well accepted, regardless of intent or need.
>  I do however agree that everything should be put to a vote, each item
>  clearly stated, understood and voted for in a peer-viewable and
>  organized manner. i.e. not hidden, obfuscated or obscured in any way. 
This is a
large undertaking and will almost certainly fail if things are 
not done in the correct order.
For starters, there are quite a few inactive ops - their vote still 
counts currently, and can influence any decisions made. This list 
*needs* to be flushed before the sig can move forward imho.

I can certainly think of a couple of occasions where a non-active op has 
appeared in the channel after months of inactivity, pulled the trigger 
on the laser-guided-bot a couple of times, then disappeared shortly 
afterwards.
>   2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even reply,
>  save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired back
>  negatively based on who I am, and not the content or context of the
>  original email to this thread without the benefit of doubt or
>  clarification that he understood what he thought he did. Granted, I
>  should not have replied at all to him based on that alone. It seems we
>  were both ignorant and still have work to do.
>
>   3. There are some issues with both FedoraProject.org and
>  FedoraUnity.org pertaining directly to #fedora* IRC channels (I'll be
>  reading the links you sent me later this evening, however I think I
>  may have been the original author of at least one of them although
>  Sonar_Guy posted it on my behalf).
>      a. FedoraProject - Who is in control of #fedora* it's policies,
>  procedures and direction? 
Although as I believe it, #fedora is an official support
channel, and so 
I guess ultimate responsibility remains with the Fedora Board....its up 
to the IRC-support-sig to deal with policies, procedures and direction. 
This has worked reasonably well in my opinion over the last 12 months, 
with new ideas and procedures such as the support ticket trac, and the 
@quiet plugin being implemented (just a couple that come to mind). 
However, there simply aren't enough "hands on deck" to keep SOPs and 
policy/procedure documents up to date...lots of "didn't have time" and 
"can't be bothered" approaches (I personally have neglected updating 
documents I volunteered to attend to).
>      b. FedoraUnity - Sadly, this project/group has never been well
>  organized in any sane or official fashion, has only one person in
>  control of the domains / structure & organization of content /
>  top-level website CMS configuration which has caused friction between
>  many (who I will not name but let them make their own statements), is
>  not an official part of the FedoraProject and therefore can do
>  "whatever" without any direct oversight or consequence by the
>  FedoraProject. I've heard before on multiple occasions "No one can
>  make any top level changes because it's been so highly customized none
>  of us even know where to begin." Which I've seen myself having paid
>  the hosting bill for a few years and helping manage aspects of the
>  Zope/Plone website which is now horribly out of date. 
I think this it outside the
scope of the support sig in reality, nothing 
mentioned on this list, or voted on in the meetings will affect Fedora 
Unity beyond a voluntary change.
>   4. The "good ol' boy" club attitude, looking the other way at bad
>  behavior simply based on who offender is, what feet might be stepped
>  on, who might be offended, etc rather than the actual behavior itself
>  and whether it's acceptable. People concerned with maintaining power,
>  driving the direction of things or stunting changes simply to control
>  them have questionable intentions in my opinion. It should not matter
>  if it's a channel op or someone who's just come in for the first time. 
In
reality yes, there is...I may well be a member of that club, not sure 
how we avoid that atmosphere and the mob-mentality that follows it, but 
I'm open to ideas..
>   5. Anyone not currently active on such a regular basis as required by
>  the task they are in control of should be required to hand over the
>  reigns to someone who is active and qualified for the task. You don't
>  take on tasks or responsibilities that require ongoing attention then
>  neglect or abandon them and perform them whenever it suits your fancy.
>  This goes for everyone from ops to website maintainers, program
>  coordinators, etc, really any job that requires regular attention.
>  This is how things fall this badly into disrepair in the first place. 
I agree,
although it needs to be more specific. The finer details can be 
drilled down upon at a later time, but there should be a set of 
guidelines that says: If you have been inactive for (X), then you don't 
get to do (Y) until you are.....or something along those lines anyway.
>   6. As for dealing with users posting outdated, false, misleading or
>  outright bad info, this is why I propose a unified help front that is
>  100% in control of the FedoraProject. Sending people to the
>  FedoraProject Wiki for one thing, FedoraSolved for another,
>  FedoraForum for yet another.. It's confusing and shows discontinuity
>  to the new and existing users whether they realize it consciously or
>  subconsciously. If there was a unified front and the channel policy
>  was only to send people to these help resources it would flow much
>  more smoothly. Please see #wordpress wordpress.org and/or talk to
>  Freenode IRC operator Sivel for examples on how this might be
>  accomplished. 
I think this is the channel policy to a point, as a group of users we

show a unified front on what is, and is not supported - and where the 
reliable reading material is.

OTOH, there is a _very_ annoying attitude towards technologies which are 
"Unsupported Here" simply because the technologies had an unreliable 
past, or the operator in question doesn't understand them.


>   Again, I have lots of valid ideas and possible solutions for much
> of
>  the above but yelling in an empty auditorium won't get anyone
>  anywhere. If Fedora is to be the "best" in its product offering,
>  support and general appeal then the work to this end never stops. The
>  above items are clear indications to me and others in the community
>  where change is badly needed. It's certainly possible, the only real
>  question is if anyone else is willing to do the heavy lifting. 
You have obviously
put alot of time and thought into this, which is 
refreshing. And I agree, you have many valid ideas and are quite 
obviously able to contribute to the sig. To that end, provided that you 
are comfortable doing so....I would personally like to invite you onto 
#fedora-ops (which will require 1 other operator to do so IIRC) with a 
view to (if you are still of the same mindset next week) nominating you 
as an operator and member of the SIG.

In closing, personal grudges and vendettas should not affect anyone's 
decision regarding this, we have someone with an appetite to help, 
suggest changes, and contribute to the sig...with the time to do it. Its 
time to put the sleeping dogs to bed, and move on ;-)

Dave
>  Thanks for your time,
>  - -Warren
>
>  On 12/02/2011 03:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  > On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:52:40 -0800 warren <warren(a)centoshelp.org&gt;
>  > wrote:
>  >
>  > ...snip...
>  >
>  >> Ultimately, I love Fedora and Red Hat and I want to be a part of
>  >> a community that is self-responsible and teaches that behavior
>  >> to others. Some ways I see accomplishing this is in the areas of
>  >> problem solving techniques, research skills and best practices
>  >> and methods so that, as a group, we can all "teach a man to fish"
>  >> so they may feel empowered to contribute back to the community
>  >> and feel supported in that effort while maintaining a
>  >> professional and helpful approach. This is something that
>  >> everyone can and should be taking back into their normal "real"
>  >> lives.
>  >
>  > Great. I agree.
>  >
>  >> In this vein of thinking I propose the following not-so-easy
>  >> undertakings to start the ball rolling:
>  >>
>  >> 1.. Full restructuring of the IRC help forum and a written clear
>  >> policy as to how this will be accomplished, including: a.
>  >> Publicly accessible "channel behavior guidelines" which all must
>  >> read and follow, regardless of "status".
>  >
>  > I'd be ok with that if we can draft a guideline like that we could
>  > reach consensus on. Any ideas what you would like it to contain?
>  > It's hard to make a document that lists everything anyone could do.
>  >
>  >
>  >> b. Agreed central help resources, forums, FP.org wiki, and other
>  >> tools to present a more unified public support structure.
>  >
>  > Also sounds good to me. I think in general this pretty much
>  > already happens. fedorasolved, fedora wiki are the vast majority of
>  > things used by everyone but new people. Sometimes there are other
>  > links that are sane from random other sites. Sometimes new people
>  > drop in and send links to old/bad/horrible info.
>  >
>  >> c. Abuse/sanction policies
>  >
>  > Again, I would be fine with that if we could draft and agree on
>  > some. I think its pretty hard to do this with a support medium,
>  > because so much of it's subjective as well as the fact that we have
>  > not too many possible options here: a) warn, b) ban/remove for
>  > various times, c) remove operator or helper status.
>  >
>  > Could you provide some examples of what you might like to see
>  > here?
>  >
>  > I think we somewhat went down this road with:
>  >
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Getting_started_with_IRC_support
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Participants
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_helpers_code_of_conduct
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/IRC_operators_code_of_conduct
>  > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Channel_FAQ
>  >
>  > But thats all incomplete and not really where it's too great.
>  >
>  >> I believe I have the desire, time, skills, etc to help in this
>  >> area which would put an abrupt halt to most frustrations felt on
>  >> my part. Having said all this, words are cheap and actions are
>  >> what give us something worth appreciating and feeling we're
>  >> contributing towards something worthwhile. That being said, I'll
>  >> await to see if I'm once again ignored or if these concerns are
>  >> taken seriously this time.
>  >
>  > I'd be happy for you to work on the above... I think it would need
>  > lots of feedback and we would not implement anything until we
>  > reached some kind of consensus that it was ready to go.
>  >
>  > Perhaps other folks would be willing to assist? I'd be happy to
>  > provide feedback, but I've been busy of late, so don't know if I
>  > can help in the initial drafting process. I would stress that it
>  > would be good to share progress early and often so everyone can
>  > provide feedback.
>  >
>  > Those are my initial thoughts. Perhaps others will chime in.
>  >
>  > kevin
>  >
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________ irc-support-sig
>  > mailing list irc-support-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-support-sig
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >  iEYEARECAAYFAk7Zll8ACgkQI5ZhoGXYrD4uWwCeNY774EWjg09L/0E2Oy+k69dE
> >  QHAAniELc8TbHUHgaIq8dM+Ep1bnJxoP
> >  =NQjT
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  irc-support-sig mailing list
>  irc-support-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/irc-support-sig

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:55:54 +0000
Dave Riches <david.r(a)ultracar.co.uk&gt; wrote:

>  This is a large undertaking and will almost certainly fail if things
>  are not done in the correct order.
>  For starters, there are quite a few inactive ops - their vote still 
>  counts currently, and can influence any decisions made. This list 
>  *needs* to be flushed before the sig can move forward imho. 
Well, it depends... we don't really vote on anything. :) 
Adding new ops stalled out last time over voting and such... 

I really prefer reaching consensus to voting, personally. 

>  I can certainly think of a couple of occasions where a non-active op
>  has appeared in the channel after months of inactivity, pulled the
>  trigger on the laser-guided-bot a couple of times, then disappeared
>  shortly afterwards. 
Yeah, thats no good. 

>  Although as I believe it, #fedora is an official support channel,
> and
>  so I guess ultimate responsibility remains with the Fedora
>  Board....its up to the IRC-support-sig to deal with policies,
>  procedures and direction. This has worked reasonably well in my
>  opinion over the last 12 months, with new ideas and procedures such
>  as the support ticket trac, and the @quiet plugin being implemented
>  (just a couple that come to mind). However, there simply aren't
>  enough "hands on deck" to keep SOPs and policy/procedure documents up
>  to date...lots of "didn't have time" and "can't be bothered"
>  approaches (I personally have neglected updating documents I
>  volunteered to attend to). 
I fear this is often the case in volunteer groups... we do the best we
can to try and add people and get as much done as we can. 

...snip...

>  You have obviously put alot of time and thought into this, which is 
>  refreshing. And I agree, you have many valid ideas and are quite 
>  obviously able to contribute to the sig. To that end, provided that
>  you are comfortable doing so....I would personally like to invite you
>  onto #fedora-ops (which will require 1 other operator to do so IIRC)
>  with a view to (if you are still of the same mindset next week)
>  nominating you as an operator and member of the SIG. 
I think we need to hash out how we add new ops again and come up with a
method that people can all agree on. Also, none of the things in this
discussion really require being an op as far as I can see. Part of this
work could clarify how one becomes an operator. 

>  In closing, personal grudges and vendettas should not affect
> anyone's 
>  decision regarding this, we have someone with an appetite to help, 
>  suggest changes, and contribute to the sig...with the time to do it.
>  Its time to put the sleeping dogs to bed, and move on ;-) 
Amen.

kevin

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 19:24:15 -0800
warren <warren(a)fedoraos.org&gt; wrote:

>  
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  Kevin,
>  
>   Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as crystal
>  clear as possible) before we even go any further.
>  
>   1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and definitely not
>  something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle feathers because things
>  *will* change if this path is taken. You know as well as I do that
>  change is most often not well accepted, regardless of intent or need. 
Agreed. People like status quo. Hopefully we can look beyond that
though and see things that would help improve. 

>  I do however agree that everything should be put to a vote, each
> item
>  clearly stated, understood and voted for in a peer-viewable and
>  organized manner. i.e. not hidden, obfuscated or obscured in any way. 
I'm not convinced voting is the way to go. I prefer reaching some kind
of consensus with a rough majority. With voting you get into: Who can
vote, how long do they need to consider items, what items can be put up
for a vote by whom, should votes be public or private, etc. 

I would like to think that we could craft items such that at least a
rough majority of people would see the advantage in doing
them/switching to them. 

>   
>   2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even reply, 
Well, give it time. Some folks are busy... I'd say we should also
discuss this next week at the sig meeting as well. Perhaps in IRC some
folks who can't be bothered to subscribe here would chime in. 

>  save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired back
>  negatively based on who I am, and not the content or context of the
>  original email to this thread without the benefit of doubt or
>  clarification that he understood what he thought he did. Granted, I
>  should not have replied at all to him based on that alone. It seems we
>  were both ignorant and still have work to do.
>  
>   3. There are some issues with both FedoraProject.org and
>  FedoraUnity.org pertaining directly to #fedora* IRC channels (I'll be
>  reading the links you sent me later this evening, however I think I
>  may have been the original author of at least one of them although
>  Sonar_Guy posted it on my behalf). 
Yes, you wrote up at least the initial version of what became the faq I
think. :) Thanks!

>      a. FedoraProject - Who is in control of #fedora* it's
> policies,
>  procedures and direction? 
My understanding (and hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong)
is that #fedora* on freenode is a official "group". meaning the
policies at: 
http://freenode.net/group_registration.shtml
Apply. So, ultimately, the Fedora group contact has control. In
practice I think the Board would be the ultimate aribiter and they seem
quite happy to allow this SIG to organize and setup policies and
process for #fedora as they see fit. For other #fedora* channels, such
policies (if any) are governed by the operators for those channels. 

>      b. FedoraUnity - Sadly, this project/group has never been well
>  organized in any sane or official fashion, has only one person in
>  control of the domains / structure & organization of content /
>  top-level website CMS configuration which has caused friction between
>  many (who I will not name but let them make their own statements), is
>  not an official part of the FedoraProject and therefore can do
>  "whatever" without any direct oversight or consequence by the
>  FedoraProject. I've heard before on multiple occasions "No one can
>  make any top level changes because it's been so highly customized none
>  of us even know where to begin." Which I've seen myself having paid
>  the hosting bill for a few years and helping manage aspects of the
>  Zope/Plone website which is now horribly out of date. 
I think this is beyond the scope of this list/group. 

>   4. The "good ol' boy" club attitude, looking the other
> way at bad
>  behavior simply based on who offender is, what feet might be stepped
>  on, who might be offended, etc rather than the actual behavior itself
>  and whether it's acceptable. People concerned with maintaining power,
>  driving the direction of things or stunting changes simply to control
>  them have questionable intentions in my opinion. It should not matter
>  if it's a channel op or someone who's just come in for the first time. 
Yes, agreed.

>   5. Anyone not currently active on such a regular basis as required
> by
>  the task they are in control of should be required to hand over the
>  reigns to someone who is active and qualified for the task. You don't
>  take on tasks or responsibilities that require ongoing attention then
>  neglect or abandon them and perform them whenever it suits your fancy.
>  This goes for everyone from ops to website maintainers, program
>  coordinators, etc, really any job that requires regular attention.
>  This is how things fall this badly into disrepair in the first place. 
Also agreed, however: This is a volunteer group. Peoples time
commitment varies as their other dayjob or life presses in. Also, some
tasks are not easy to define. To be an operator should someone police
the channel for 20 hours a week? 5? 1? 10min? And would they 'clock in'
or how do you keep track? 

If you are unable to help out in the channel at all for 2 weeks, but
then can help out a lot the next, should you have been removed? 

I think this sort of thing works much more when there are specific
deliverables: You must send a TPS report every friday or we fire you.
Instead of: you must help out as much as you are able to. 

>   6. As for dealing with users posting outdated, false, misleading or
>  outright bad info, this is why I propose a unified help front that is
>  100% in control of the FedoraProject. Sending people to the
>  FedoraProject Wiki for one thing, FedoraSolved for another,
>  FedoraForum for yet another.. It's confusing and shows discontinuity
>  to the new and existing users whether they realize it consciously or
>  subconsciously. If there was a unified front and the channel policy
>  was only to send people to these help resources it would flow much
>  more smoothly. Please see #wordpress wordpress.org and/or talk to
>  Freenode IRC operator Sivel for examples on how this might be
>  accomplished. 
Well, I think this is again good in principal... but what if there is a
great other resource not on those sites that would really help the
user? Ignore it and tell them we have no info?

>   Again, I have lots of valid ideas and possible solutions for much
> of
>  the above but yelling in an empty auditorium won't get anyone
>  anywhere. If Fedora is to be the "best" in its product offering,
>  support and general appeal then the work to this end never stops. The
>  above items are clear indications to me and others in the community
>  where change is badly needed. It's certainly possible, the only real
>  question is if anyone else is willing to do the heavy lifting. 
Sure, lets see if others chime in... 

kevin

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[Thomas Janssen]

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 04:24, warren <warren(a)fedoraos.org&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Kevin,
>
>   Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as crystal
>  clear as possible) before we even go any further.
>
>   1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and definitely not
>  something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle feathers because things
>  *will* change if this path is taken. You know as well as I do that
>  change is most often not well accepted, regardless of intent or need.
>  I do however agree that everything should be put to a vote, each item
>  clearly stated, understood and voted for in a peer-viewable and
>  organized manner. i.e. not hidden, obfuscated or obscured in any way.
>
>   2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even reply,
>  save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired back
>  negatively based on who I am, and not the content or context of the
>  original email to this thread without the benefit of doubt or
>  clarification that he understood what he thought he did. Granted, I
>  should not have replied at all to him based on that alone. It seems we
>  were both ignorant and still have work to do. 
I haven't seen it was an old copy/paste. My mistake.

-- 
Best regards
Thomas

"Getting the ball rolling.."

[warren]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



On 12/03/2011 11:30 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>  On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 04:24, warren <warren(a)fedoraos.org&gt;
> wrote:
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Kevin,
> >
> > Here's where I'm currently at (and I will try to make it as
> > crystal clear as possible) before we even go any further.
> >
> > 1. This is a large undertaking, not a one man task and
> > definitely not something only I see. It's *going* to ruffle
> > feathers because things *will* change if this path is taken. You
> > know as well as I do that change is most often not well accepted,
> > regardless of intent or need. I do however agree that everything
> > should be put to a vote, each item clearly stated, understood and
> > voted for in a peer-viewable and organized manner. i.e. not
> > hidden, obfuscated or obscured in any way.
> >
> > 2. You seem to be the only with with enough interest to even
> > reply, save Thomasj who misread, misinterpreted and simply fired
> > back negatively based on who I am, and not the content or
> > context of the original email to this thread without the benefit
> > of doubt or clarification that he understood what he thought he
> > did. Granted, I should not have replied at all to him based on
> > that alone. It seems we were both ignorant and still have work to
> > do.
>
>  I haven't seen it was an old copy/paste. My mistake.
>  
I'm over it and hope we can move past it, permanently. It takes 2 to
tango.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk7avXQACgkQI5ZhoGXYrD4qEACdGNW30yXcwPKc48Ev9VlmiUE5
> G8EAn3tZDq7yR7/s0i6b5C7zvDACv/mR
> =lwL+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----