Plan for tomorrow's irc support sig meeting (2011-06-22)
Kevin Fenzi
kevin at scrye.com
Thu Jun 23 17:57:22 UTC 2011
=============================================
#fedora-meeting: IRC Support SIG (2011-06-23)
=============================================
Meeting started by nirik at 17:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-06-23/irc-support-sig.2011-06-23-17.00.log.html
..
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (nirik, 17:00:02)
* Week in review (nirik, 17:02:13)
* LINK: http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html
(nirik, 17:02:13)
* LINK: http://k3rnel.net/2011/06/22/bluebubble-the-fine-manual/
(EvilBob, 17:05:11)
* Tickets (nirik, 17:08:38)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1 (nirik,
17:08:38)
* Open Floor (nirik, 17:38:50)
Meeting ended at 17:56:38 UTC.
Action Items
------------
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* nirik (103)
* EvilBob (62)
* Southern_Gentlem (39)
* mjg59 (22)
* dcr226 (21)
* DiscordianUK (14)
* Khaytsus (11)
* mbouffard (11)
* pjones (7)
* jsmith (5)
* N3LRX (4)
* zodbot (3)
* moto6502 (3)
* Sonar_Gal (2)
* pravins (1)
--
17:00:01 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2011-06-23)
17:00:01 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jun 23 17:00:01 2011 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:01 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:02 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig
17:00:02 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig'
17:00:02 <nirik> #topic init process
17:00:47 * N3LRX
17:00:51 <Sonar_Gal>
17:00:55 * Sonar_Gal
17:00:59 * dcr226
17:01:02 * DiscordianUK
17:01:03 <EvilBob> Bacon
17:01:52 <nirik> bacon everyone.
17:01:56 <Khaytsus> nocab
17:02:09 <nirik> ok, I guess lets go ahead and get started.
17:02:13 <nirik> #topic Week in review
17:02:13 <nirik> http://fedora.theglaserfamily.org/ircstats/fedora-weekly.html
17:02:37 <nirik> another pretty busy/normal week.
17:02:46 * nirik sees he is out of the top 10. Cool! ;)
17:03:17 <nirik> anyone have anything they would like to note or shout out from this last week?
17:03:24 <nirik> common issues? trends?
17:03:58 <Southern_Gentlem> +1 bodhi for stepping up
17:03:59 <EvilBob> BlueBupple
17:04:04 <EvilBob> BlueBubble
17:04:18 <EvilBob> Nushio has a howto on his blog
17:04:18 <DiscordianUK> Yeah that looks interesting
17:04:21 <Southern_Gentlem> FF5 is going to be a pain
17:04:48 <DiscordianUK> Do we know whether FF5 will be make it into F15?
17:04:50 <EvilBob> I'm going to try to get a redirect from http://fedorasolved.org/bluebubble to it for an easy URL
17:04:56 <nirik> DiscordianUK: yes, it's being worked on for f15.
17:04:58 <Khaytsus> Southern_Gentlem: Why a pain, because usere will want it, even though it's a small incremental stp from 4?
17:05:11 <EvilBob> http://k3rnel.net/2011/06/22/bluebubble-the-fine-manual/
17:05:28 <Southern_Gentlem> Khaytsus, also mozzilla has killed security support for ff4
17:05:30 <nirik> EvilBob: yeah, we might want to try and get some folks to try it out first and see if there are any obvious gotchas.
17:05:37 <DiscordianUK> I see spot has it already in his repo
17:05:41 <Khaytsus> What is bluebubble??
17:05:48 <Southern_Gentlem> g2 on f15
17:05:48 <nirik> Khaytsus: gnome2 port to f15
17:05:51 <EvilBob> damaestro said he will look at the redirect later today, I will try to keep your updated
17:05:56 <DiscordianUK> gnome2 on f15
17:06:02 <Khaytsus> bah.. xfce
17:06:11 <nirik> firefox5 == firefox 4.1 in the old numbering scheme. ;)
17:06:22 <DiscordianUK> heh
17:06:35 <N3LRX> ridicules if you ask me.
17:06:42 <nirik> anyhow, anything else for the week? or shall we move on to tickets?
17:06:42 <Khaytsus> nirik: In that case, why can't it be updated int he respos? :)
17:06:52 <EvilBob> Users want it, not my place to say "NO"
17:07:04 <EvilBob> Khaytsus: Because it's not pretty
17:07:07 <nirik> Khaytsus: it's no longer supported upstream. It also conflicts with/doesn't play nicely with 3
17:07:16 <nirik> ie, they can't really have both last time i checked.
17:07:27 <EvilBob> nirik: Correct
17:07:57 <Southern_Gentlem> and they have gone to a new release every 3 months
17:08:11 <EvilBob> That's all I had
17:08:27 <EvilBob> Firgured it was worth noting
17:08:32 <nirik> yep.
17:08:38 <nirik> #topic Tickets
17:08:38 <nirik> https://fedorahosted.org/irc-support-sig/report/1
17:08:50 <nirik> ok, we have several tickets...
17:09:07 <EvilBob> Is #56 now a dupe of the later tickets really?
17:09:14 <nirik> carried over from previous weeks, we have: #56
17:09:15 <nirik> op identification and line length faq item
17:09:16 <Khaytsus> Vote to close 61, 62, and 56 without further wasting of time
17:09:34 <nirik> lets do them one at a time please.
17:09:49 <nirik> on 56, we adjusted the faq... (I admit it could use more work... any takers?)
17:09:56 <Khaytsus> Ship it
17:10:19 <EvilBob> The FAQ is a living item, it'll get cleaned up at some point
17:10:32 <Southern_Gentlem> nirik, line about pms make it to the FAQ
17:10:33 <nirik> also on 56, I was going to propose we try a 1 week period where active ops voice themselves... to show they are active and around.
17:10:50 <nirik> but not clear that will help things...
17:10:54 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
17:10:59 <EvilBob> I don't see how it will
17:11:03 <nirik> so, votes on that?
17:11:06 <Southern_Gentlem> -1
17:11:08 <DiscordianUK> -1
17:11:11 <EvilBob> -1
17:11:23 <nirik> It would let people know who are ops and who they should listen to...
17:11:37 <nirik> but it also might make things more likely to go south if people realize there are none active.
17:11:41 <EvilBob> There are many helpers that are not ops
17:11:48 <nirik> or ignore good advice from someone who is not opped
17:11:50 <nirik> yeaha.
17:12:06 <Southern_Gentlem> and it also puts a target on the ops back
17:12:08 <nirik> ok, sounds like no on that at this time.
17:12:17 * nirik will ponder on a better way to do it.
17:12:21 <Southern_Gentlem> been there it dont work
17:12:33 <nirik> ok, anything else on ticket 56? shall we move on?
17:12:40 <Southern_Gentlem> kill it
17:12:44 <EvilBob> Kill it
17:13:09 <nirik> #61 - nick change policy is incongruent with other #fedora- channel conventions
17:13:20 <nirik> I'd like to propose changing out nick changing guideline here.
17:13:26 <nirik> (hows that for a tounge twister)
17:13:38 <DiscordianUK> I'm against this
17:13:45 <N3LRX> Keep the current policy.
17:13:58 <Southern_Gentlem> lets hear nirik out
17:14:06 <DiscordianUK> It's standard practice IMHO to discourage auto-away
17:14:14 <nirik> Currently our policy is: (as I understand it): No nick changes or away messages allowed at all.
17:14:29 <EvilBob> nirik: What you are proposing is really what the policy has been all along
17:14:32 <nirik> it's horribly unevenly enforced.
17:14:34 <DiscordianUK> That's how I understand it
17:15:13 <nirik> proposal: change policy to be: "disruptive or excessive nick changes or away messages are not allowed"
17:15:33 <DiscordianUK> +1
17:15:44 <EvilBob> but still warn on the first instance should the op feel like it
17:15:53 <nirik> if someone changes to _afk a few times a day I really don't think we shoudl care.
17:15:56 <EvilBob> fire one over the bow if you will
17:15:59 <nirik> most of the time no one even notices.
17:16:18 <nirik> we had something like 400 nick changes in a 2 week period where there were 2 warnings to people.
17:16:39 <EvilBob> and also, NO ONE should be exempt
17:16:59 <nirik> if someone changes to _offensive_nick or does a bunch of changes in a minute, sure, let them know.
17:17:11 <Southern_Gentlem> disruptive nickchanges ==nickchanges in the middle of someone getting help ?
17:17:29 <nirik> if it's a bunch at once, sure.
17:17:38 <nirik> one nick change shouldn't bother anyone... it's 1 line...
17:17:45 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: IMO, any nick change can/should get a warning
17:17:49 <nirik> IMHO
17:18:21 <pjones> EvilBob: seriously?
17:18:26 <N3LRX> Its more noise in an already noisy channel.
17:18:29 <nirik> EvilBob: I disagree...
17:18:30 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: That has been the policy until now, sure enforcement is lax but so be it.
17:18:45 <pjones> enforcement is lax because that's a completely draconian policy.
17:18:49 <EvilBob> If they can eventually get kicked for it why should they not be warned?
17:19:12 <nirik> they could get kicked for being disruptive too... :)
17:19:16 <Southern_Gentlem> pjones, laymans terms please
17:19:27 <EvilBob> pjones: IMO, your opinion is nil, you are not in the channel in question, have you ever been?
17:19:28 <nirik> anyhow, votes? or more discussion?
17:19:43 <pjones> EvilBob: not recently, and that's fair enough, I guess.
17:20:04 <nirik> I'm +1 to my proposal shockingly enough.
17:20:11 <Southern_Gentlem> 0
17:20:36 <DiscordianUK> +1
17:20:44 <jsmith> +0
17:20:51 <EvilBob> I'm +1 to it's not broken
17:21:12 * nirik wonders if the current policy is anywhere.
17:21:14 <nirik> I don't see it.
17:21:48 <nirik> ok, here's what it says on the channel faq:
17:21:57 <EvilBob> Here is my take on the warning part
17:22:01 <nirik> "Switching your name based on your various periods of inactivity can also be rather annoying, especially when overused. There are many people in channel, please be considerate of their attention."
17:22:11 * dcr226 thinks "disruptive" and "excessive" are subjective anyway, so sure +1 to the wording change
17:22:17 <mbouffard> greetings
17:22:17 <nirik> so, it in fact does not say "warn everyone to not do this"
17:22:20 <pravins> aha
17:22:23 <nirik> dcr226: absolutely.
17:22:28 <EvilBob> If you do not warn them the first time you see it, how are you to know if they had been warned before
17:22:58 <nirik> EvilBob: does it matter? how would I know if say Anvil warned someone 6 months ago?
17:23:26 <EvilBob> that's why you warn them, history has shown that MOST people are understanding
17:23:37 * jsmith thinks we have much bigger fish to fry than worrying about a warning six months ago
17:23:48 <EvilBob> You warn them they modify the behavior, it becomes a non-issue
17:23:56 <nirik> anyhow, looking at the current policy, I think it's fine, but I think we should ease up on warning people about it until they are overusing it or are being anoying.
17:24:13 <jsmith> I agree
17:24:33 <EvilBob> I'll keep warning people, don't want to see anyone kicked for it
17:24:49 * moto6502 noms bacon...exceessively
17:24:59 <EvilBob> If you choose to kick me for warning people they could be kicked, so be it
17:25:06 <nirik> EvilBob: do point them at the above policy... noting that its not forbidden. ;)
17:25:51 <nirik> so, note this in the ticket and move on?
17:25:54 <nirik> or anything more on this?
17:26:08 <mbouffard> stick fenrus on 'em
17:26:34 <dcr226> imho, the resultant decision won't be enough for the OP, so we can always go back over it next week ;-)
17:26:46 <EvilBob> dcr226: OP?
17:26:58 <dcr226> EvilBob, original poster of the ticket. sorry
17:27:21 <nirik> #62 - public scolding about minor FAQ compliance should be re-thought
17:27:37 <nirik> There's a lot of reasons not to like PM's...
17:27:46 <EvilBob> I disagree, you do it in private no one knows
17:27:49 <DiscordianUK> Indeed
17:28:07 <nirik> disagree with what? I was saying there's lots of reasons to dislike pms. ;)
17:28:09 * Southern_Gentlem steps back
17:28:18 <nirik> oh, the ticket.
17:28:24 <Khaytsus> My thought are unchanged here, privately discussing it and potentially privately warning and subsequently kicking a person does not make other participants aware of the issue nor the pending action, all they see is the action.
17:28:36 <EvilBob> A similar situation involving language recently happened on one of the mailing lists, $NUMBER of people ended up contacting the poster.
17:28:45 <nirik> what do folks think of using the bot for some initial issues?
17:28:55 <Southern_Gentlem> no
17:29:05 <Southern_Gentlem> one line in the FAQ
17:29:08 <nirik> that does avoid some of the issues...
17:29:12 <nirik> but not all
17:29:17 <EvilBob> If it was me having 3,5,10 people telling me not to do something I would tell them all to go stimulate themselves
17:29:19 <Khaytsus> The issue was not the actions taken it was the particular person not likeing the policy. This is just th method they chose to argue it.
17:29:37 <nirik> EvilBob: yeah, thats a big problem with that. no way to coordinate.
17:29:41 <Southern_Gentlem> Private Messages will not be issued for warnings from the Channel ops
17:29:53 <Khaytsus> Southern_Gentlem: +1
17:29:56 <nirik> there are others.
17:29:57 <DiscordianUK> +1
17:30:19 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: +1
17:30:39 <Khaytsus> Because what if they PM back GGF, what do you do then? :)
17:30:57 <Southern_Gentlem> Private Messages do not promote transparenty (sp)
17:31:04 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: +1
17:31:28 <EvilBob> We don't PM help for the same reasons
17:31:33 <nirik> ok, so, sounds like we do not wish to switch anything away from public at this time here.
17:31:37 <Southern_Gentlem> and i had another about the open source way
17:31:44 * mbouffard coughs the catalyst guidelines like magic
17:32:04 <nirik> all that being said, I would like us to all make sure if we tell someone about an issue, we should be polite and professional and point them to the faq.
17:32:07 <Southern_Gentlem> mbouffard, they are guidelines not rules
17:32:16 <jsmith> nirik: +1
17:32:31 <mbouffard> of course
17:32:51 <Southern_Gentlem> now on this issue I want someone to tell was I not polite ?
17:32:56 <EvilBob> SO policy remains the same
17:33:29 <nirik> also noting from those the Unobtrusive and Minimalist points.
17:33:31 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: your initial contact, first line, was
17:33:37 <Southern_Gentlem> $user Please take a look at the Channel Faq in the /topic about away messages please
17:34:08 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: I think you were polite... but then were less so when the other party was impolite/angry at you.
17:34:09 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: It was the second and subsequent lines that could have been handled better.
17:35:02 <Southern_Gentlem> helping 2-3 people then the $user blowing off on me like that was more than i oculd take
17:35:10 <Southern_Gentlem> at the sametime
17:35:10 <nirik> I think perhaps there, we should refer people to ticketing system/etc.
17:35:15 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: And that is understandable
17:35:30 <EvilBob> to me anyhow
17:35:31 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: yeah, understandable. When that happens, it's best to step away for a while and let others handle things, IMHO
17:35:41 <dcr226> careful not to turn ops into punchbags here
17:36:04 <mbouffard> to the bacon room :p
17:36:04 <dcr226> if I was a successful troll, reading this meeting log, I can troll the crap out of #fedora ops, and they'll be nice to me
17:36:13 <nirik> well, in some ways we kind of have to be. We have more responsability, we should have more ability to hande things.
17:36:38 <Southern_Gentlem> dcr226, one word SILO
17:36:39 <nirik> dcr226: sure. but at a point you would/should just be kicked.
17:36:48 <nirik> ok, anything more on this ticket?
17:36:50 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: rather than your second line, "Just wanted to let you know, have a nice day" then go back to helping mentally ignoring the user would be the best bet.
17:37:00 <dcr226> and if they aren't......I can file a ticket and expect something to change
17:37:06 <Southern_Gentlem> EvilBob, dont matter any more
17:37:07 <dcr226> nirik, yeah
17:37:24 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: Right but you asked if you were polite
17:37:25 <dcr226> nirik, as in, I agree with "kicked", not yeah I've got more for the ticket
17:37:36 <nirik> ah, ok, I was waiting for more. ;)
17:37:43 <dcr226> nah
17:37:43 <nirik> #63 - fenrus02: great stuff!
17:37:48 <mbouffard> I think it's a case by case thing, can't apply an algorithm to every single situation
17:37:52 <nirik> kudos to fenrus02 !
17:38:03 <nirik> mbouffard: very true.
17:38:41 <nirik> ok. I will go close tickets after the meeting.
17:38:44 <EvilBob> WTG fenrus02
17:38:50 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:38:59 <nirik> anything for open floor?
17:39:17 <mbouffard> tango
17:39:49 <EvilBob> Just want to note, my comment to pjones was not personal, it applies to anyone that is not involved.
17:40:16 <mbouffard> 2 seconds background?
17:40:59 <EvilBob> I am personally sick and tired of people that are not and have never been part of the #fedora channel and it's subsection of the Fedora Community telling those that are what to do.
17:41:28 * moto6502 continues to nom bacon and read...
17:41:57 <pjones> EvilBob: didn't take it personally. You're totally entitled to your opinion.
17:42:29 <Southern_Gentlem> pjones, we are dealing with 450 users + on a daily basis
17:42:31 <EvilBob> Another thing, quit sticking up for third parties that you THINK were some how hurt. If I give a user a hard time, help them, joke around, they thank me. Who are you to bitch that I gave them a hard time in the process.
17:42:49 <pjones> Pretty sure I haven't done that.
17:43:04 <Southern_Gentlem> so how rules cannot be the same as other #fedora channels
17:43:04 <pjones> Southern_Gentlem: sure.
17:43:12 <Southern_Gentlem> how our
17:43:27 <mjg59> EvilBob: You're part of the public face of Fedora. How you choose to enforce policies is something that's of interest to the wider project.
17:43:41 <dcr226> I'm keeping away from #fedora a bit this week, and perhaps next...just a bit disheartened with it all currently, so I'm sticking to stuff where I feel I can make a difference...not a cry for sympathy, moreover an explanation of circumstance
17:43:58 <mjg59> We have expectations of how community members treat each other. I'm not saying that you're doing anything wrong, but people who aren't involved in #fedora do still get to have an opinion.
17:44:27 <Southern_Gentlem> 1) the other #fedora channels people are people who have joined the fedoraproject (have a fas account)
17:44:29 <nirik> dcr226: sorry to hear it... hope you return energized
17:44:32 <EvilBob> mjg59: I'm not a channel op in #fedora, never have been, never will be.
17:44:49 <dcr226> nirik, ta
17:44:55 <mjg59> EvilBob: I'm just saying that our community standards apply to everyone
17:45:00 <mjg59> And everywhere
17:45:29 <Southern_Gentlem> mjg59, so you are saying we should limit #fedora only to people who have a fas account
17:45:34 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: Not at all
17:45:44 <EvilBob> mjg59: there are plenty of examples of Support Vampires that don't follow your suggestion and then cry when they are dealt with.
17:45:45 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: Our community expectations aren't limited to FAS members
17:46:20 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: The problem is differing views on what is community
17:46:35 <Southern_Gentlem> mjg59, but yet when we try to enforce those expectations we are called down for op abuse and our rules are draconian
17:47:18 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: If you face criticism for enforcing community standards then that's something that you really should take up with the CWG
17:47:22 <nirik> getting feedback and adjusting our policies is an ongoing thing...
17:47:23 <EvilBob> Southern_Gentlem: User who came in yesterday wanting to know something about installing and dual booting but had no way to install Fedora and was unwilling to obtain a way to install fedora is part of the COmmunity to some
17:47:23 <Southern_Gentlem> mjg59, i have been in #fedora for over 7 years being the face of fedora, going to shows being the person working the booth for fedora
17:47:27 <mjg59> We'd love to have a conversation about the practical difficulties involved
17:47:49 <pjones> I'm going to stick with my position that warning every single person who ever changes their nick that they might get kicked if they start doing so too often is, in fact, draconian.
17:47:53 <mjg59> EvilBob: When they're in a fedora IRC channel, they're part of the community
17:48:05 <dcr226> Southern_Gentlem, you also grep -c the highest in the channel in my logs fwiw
17:48:15 <nirik> pjones: yeah, I think we agreed with that (or almost all of us did. ;)
17:48:27 <mbouffard> it's also 'pollution' x2 unless they're going away and back every 10 mins or something
17:48:28 <EvilBob> mjg59: Ya'ay welcome to the community all the trolls that pass through
17:48:35 <nirik> mjg59: perhaps a joint cwg/irc sig meeting to brainstorm?
17:48:46 <mjg59> nirik: Sounds like a good idea
17:48:51 <mbouffard> a nick change is easier to mentally ignore than a warning against it for example
17:49:29 <Southern_Gentlem> i have a better idea why doesnt the CWG just come the ops and helpers for #fedora
17:49:32 <nirik> mbouffard: I agree
17:49:43 <EvilBob> Even this guy "<narsh> _____ _..--'` `'-. .' _ '. (@) \ _.---:-'COME THE FUCK _\'._ \\ AT ME BRO. _.--''`` `'-.`' | .' `""`"
17:49:50 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: Because that's not what the CWG is chartered to do
17:49:57 <EvilBob> Ya'ay for NO
17:49:58 <jsmith> +1 to joint meeting to brainstorm
17:50:04 <mjg59> EvilBob: People who are disruptive to the community should be excluded from the community, obviously
17:50:25 <EvilBob> mjg59: that is half the users that come to #fedora some days
17:50:34 <EvilBob> looking for "help"
17:50:49 <mbouffard> >>/dev/null
17:50:51 <Southern_Gentlem> mjg59, i just love the way the fedoraproject comes up with crap to tie the hands of the Fedora community
17:51:00 <dcr226> mjg59, broad statement that is.....disruptive to the community means different things to me, than you I'm guessing
17:51:20 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: I'm not clear on how you feel your hands are being tied
17:51:33 <dcr226> mjg59, I can think of disruptive members of this community that hold positions that would prevent their removal
17:51:53 <dcr226> Heh
17:51:57 <EvilBob> Thanks for coming to the meeting everyone, thanks to nirik for Chairing it for me today.
17:52:00 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: Part of making the community welcoming is ensuring that it's not poisoned by people who aren't actually seeking to be involved
17:52:17 <mjg59> Southern_Gentlem: Nobody objects to people being banned or silenced if they're causing problems
17:52:22 <EvilBob> Poisoned, that's a another pile of crap
17:52:25 <nirik> EvilBob: happy to do it...
17:52:35 <Southern_Gentlem> mjg59, i always believe to walk a mile in a mans shoes before you condem
17:52:55 <mjg59> Because then you're a mile away and you've gained a pair of shoes?
17:53:11 <mjg59> dcr226: Yeah, and that's a problem. But the intention is not for their to be any sacred cows.
17:53:11 <nirik> I don't know how scheduling would work... perhaps next week we could invite CWG people here, or go to their meeting... I think it might be instructive for them to see some of the items the sig deals with. :)
17:53:19 * moto6502 thx nirik by handing him bacon
17:53:28 * nirik eats the bacon. yum.
17:53:32 <mjg59> dcr226: We do want to avoid situations where leading community members cause problems for others
17:53:52 <dcr226> mjg59, any examples of that happening yet?
17:53:59 <mjg59> dcr226: It's obviously more difficult in those situations, but we've made it pretty clear that people aren't excused from behavioural standards merely by virtue of working for RH or anything
17:54:08 <nirik> or just point to the irc-support-sig trac I suppose. ;)
17:54:09 <Southern_Gentlem> nirik, i think the CWG needs to help in #fedora for 2 weeks day in and day out then schedule the meeting
17:54:25 <dcr226> mjg59, but has that _actually_ happened?
17:54:32 <mjg59> dcr226: No. We're still in the process of finalising the CoC stuff.
17:54:36 <dcr226> I appreciate you have made it clear..
17:54:59 <mjg59> dcr226: But if you see cases that you think are problematic, feel free to let me or anyone else in the cwg know and we'll work on it
17:55:08 <nirik> Southern_Gentlem: I would welcome their help, but not sure they all have time for it... we could surely invite them. ;)
17:55:25 <dcr226> mjg59, you see, I was || close to dropping all of my packages and fas groups earlier this week, because I felt that the members of the community that *give* their time to the community, don't count as much as those that are *paid* to give to the community
17:56:11 <mjg59> dcr226: That's a conversation I'd love to have. Here probably isn't the best place, though
17:56:19 * dcr226 thinks this is likely not a meeting topic, so feel free to close the meeting
17:56:25 <nirik> yeah, perhaps continue over in #fedora-cwg?
17:56:31 <nirik> yeah.
17:56:35 <nirik> thanks for coming everyone!
17:56:38 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/irc-support-sig/attachments/20110623/aa0ea18c/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the irc-support-sig
mailing list