Summary/Minutes from today's irc support sig meeting (2012-01-26)

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Thu Jan 26 17:34:59 UTC 2012

#fedora-meeting: IRC Support SIG (2012-01-26)

Meeting started by nirik at 16:59:58 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process  (nirik, 16:59:58)

* Week in review  (nirik, 17:04:30)
  * LINK:
    (nirik, 17:04:30)

* Tickets  (nirik, 17:08:20)
  * LINK:   (nirik,

* Processes discussion  (nirik, 17:09:29)

* Open Floor  (nirik, 17:32:33)

Meeting ended at 17:34:28 UTC.

Action Items

Action Items, by person
  * (none)

People Present (lines said)
* nirik (50)
* pingou (24)
* plarsen (23)
* DiscordianUK (15)
* zodbot (3)
* Khaytsus (2)
* N3LRX (1)
* ctria (1)
16:59:58 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2012-01-26)
16:59:58 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu Jan 26 16:59:58 2012 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at
16:59:58 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:59:58 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig
16:59:58 <nirik> #topic init process
16:59:58 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig'
17:00:56 * N3LRX 
17:01:11 * plarsen 
17:01:29 <DiscordianUK> 
17:01:49 * DiscordianUK is here
17:02:34 * nirik will wait another few min for folks...
17:02:40 <nirik> grab some bacon and have a seat.
17:03:02 * ctria tries the sofas...
17:04:25 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and dive in I guess...
17:04:30 <nirik> #topic Week in review
17:04:30 <nirik>
17:04:44 <nirik> anything folks would like to point out from this last week?
17:04:50 <nirik> seemed a pretty typical one.
17:05:45 <nirik> ha: "Nobody beat anyone up. Everybody was friendly."
17:05:50 <DiscordianUK> heh
17:06:20 <nirik> also: "EvilBob has quite a potty mouth. 0.0% words were foul language."
17:06:27 <nirik> nice bug
17:06:37 <DiscordianUK> hahaha
17:07:19 <Khaytsus> Did he overflow the buffer?
17:07:28 <nirik> heh.
17:07:28 <Khaytsus> -1% DIV
17:07:41 <nirik> ok, if nothing else on week in review will move on
17:08:20 <nirik> #topic Tickets
17:08:21 <nirik>
17:08:38 <nirik> those are old from last week.
17:08:46 <nirik> I will close them out
17:09:15 <nirik> unless someone else wants to.
17:09:29 <nirik> #topic Processes discussion
17:09:31 * pingou 
17:09:43 <nirik> so, there's been some discussion on the list on voting and processes.
17:10:51 <nirik> anyone have thoughts or discussion on it?
17:11:03 <DiscordianUK> I regret I haven't read the discussion I apologise
17:11:05 <nirik> I sent my last thing last night, so we should likely give another week for people to look at it.
17:11:12 <nirik> DiscordianUK: no worries.
17:11:12 <pingou> +1
17:11:15 * plarsen is a few days behind reading the discussion
17:11:32 <DiscordianUK> That would seem sane then
17:11:39 <nirik> yeah.
17:11:40 <pingou> nirik: I like the current draft with the postpone of the adding channels
17:11:50 <nirik> yeah, I'd really like to get something in place...
17:11:59 <nirik> and we can grow from there.
17:12:00 <pingou> but I wonder if we should not still have some thoughts about it
17:12:47 <nirik> well, I like it, but then I wrote it. ;)
17:13:13 <plarsen> Was there some kind of conclussion to what constituted "inactive OPs" ???
17:13:26 <pingou> plarsen: nope
17:13:57 <nirik> plarsen: under my current plan, you could decide you thought someone was inactive and submit a vote to remove them
17:14:18 * nirik really doesn't see the big deal with inactive, and if it bothers people they can vote them out.
17:15:31 <pingou> ah nirik I was wondering if we shouldn't have a threshold for the vote
17:15:33 <plarsen> I may try to compose a reply to the thread. I was thinking something like an "ombudsman" would be appropriate. Someone who wasn't involved in the day-to-day channel stuff, so he/she would be a neutral person in conflicts/questions?
17:15:47 <pingou> some sort of way to balance +1 -1 and 0
17:15:56 <nirik> pingou: under my proposal it would be majority of those voting.
17:16:09 <nirik> plarsen: how would they be appointed? by whom?
17:16:52 <plarsen> Haven't thought it through yet ;)  It could be a position that is voted on once a year, or appointed by the board. Or something else. Person should be active on IRC though
17:17:27 <nirik> well, I think it adds complexity, but feel free to write it up and propose on list.
17:17:44 <nirik> I'd add that anyone who actively asked for that position should be barred from it, IMHO.
17:17:49 <pingou> plarsen: I would think there are enough people on the op lists that at least one of them would be neutral to the conflict/question
17:17:50 <DiscordianUK> A quick speed read and I see no mention of the issue of #fedora-ops
17:18:00 <DiscordianUK> and who gets to be there
17:18:11 <nirik> DiscordianUK: good point. I should add that...
17:19:03 <plarsen> pingou, that would make sense, except the reason I was thinking this was to get a neutral party. Not sure how someone would be neutral in that position?
17:19:30 <plarsen> But as nirik says, it's another layer of complexity. If things can be done without that, I would agree it's better.
17:19:33 <plarsen> I'll compose something to the list.
17:19:42 <DiscordianUK> Being such a neutral party would be a poison chalice
17:19:45 <pingou> plarsen: I'm not sure one can always be neutral, having a man in the middle should be decided on a case to case basis imho
17:20:15 <pingou> such as what happened already a couple of time in the project
17:20:30 <nirik> yeah, it's hard to set aside preconceptions or opinions on things...
17:20:36 <plarsen> DiscordianUK, it could be. But it also provides a gateway for those who feels their concerns are overlooked/ignored by the ops as a group.
17:20:58 <plarsen> pingou, that may be a good way to do it
17:21:04 <plarsen> (case by case)
17:21:06 <pingou> plarsen: wait a minute
17:22:01 <pingou> plarsen: are you speaking of incident within the group or between the ops and the user of the #chan
17:22:01 <pingou> ?
17:22:16 <pingou> as in, one use think that he is being unfairly treated
17:22:23 * pingou tries to make sense
17:23:05 <DiscordianUK> I would suggest possibly making the FPL the final arbiter
17:23:17 * nirik looks forward to reading plarsen's proposal on the list. ;)
17:23:27 <plarsen> Not a particular one. There's been a couple of cases (right or wrong) where a person didn't feel he was treated right and the "guard" didn't see/agree to his points of contention.  It isn't about if the person is right or wrong but if they have a way to get address/treated by someone not considered part of the group.
17:23:32 <nirik> DiscordianUK: sure, someone can always take it to the Board.
17:23:35 <plarsen> DiscordianUK, +1
17:23:56 <pingou> plarsen: I believe there is already one, the trac is a place where one can raise his concern
17:24:20 <DiscordianUK> Indeed that is the point of the trac
17:24:25 <pingou> there was such a case last week :)
17:24:39 <plarsen> pingou, I'm not talking about changing that. You would still use trac to document the issue. The question is how an issue comes to a resolution.
17:25:18 <pingou> well, here I can only speak from what I saw last week, maybe nirik or DiscordianUK who have more experience can share their lights
17:25:43 <nirik> under my proposal2: we would try and reach consensus, if that failed in some case, a vote would be taken. If the sumbitter doesn't like the outcome, they could appeal to the board.
17:26:06 <DiscordianUK> That seems sane to me
17:26:35 <plarsen> nirik, that makes the board the "ombudsman" and that would work I think.
17:26:48 <pingou> nirik: that is in case of problems within the op groups, I have the impression that plarsen is speaking about a op vs non-op conflict
17:27:00 <plarsen> pingou, yes.
17:27:00 <nirik> I suppose.
17:27:12 <nirik> sure.
17:27:36 <plarsen> pingou, or just someone who suggests/questions something and isn't happy with the answer given by ops.
17:28:07 <pingou> plarsen: so from last week's experience, the issue was brought to all the op in the public meeting
17:28:40 <pingou> plarsen: the one(s) involved explained their action and the group tries to decide if that was fair/justified
17:28:58 <plarsen> Unfortunately my knowledge of the last few weeks events are greatly hidden in the mist of "too much work" here.  That's why I'm a bit behind reading up on the thread.
17:29:18 <plarsen> pingou, and I think that's the way most conflicts/issues should be resolved.
17:29:26 <nirik> sounds like everyone could use another week to ponder and propose new thoughts...
17:29:34 <DiscordianUK> I haven't read the list enough to comment and I had a laptop die on me which took me offline
17:29:35 <pingou> plarsen: in the case from last week, it was agreed that the action had been taken a little too quickly and that we should avoid reproducing it
17:29:36 <nirik> hopefully we could get something most folks like by next week?
17:29:47 <plarsen> pingou, However, you do have people who feel being ganged up upon, as the ops acts as a group.
17:29:50 <DiscordianUK> +1 nirik
17:30:14 <plarsen> nirik, +1
17:30:17 <pingou> plarsen: in that case, I'd think the board is the place to report to
17:30:32 <pingou> but nirik +1
17:31:03 <plarsen> pingou, I agree it's an option. I wasn't sure if it should be the board or some other entity. As long as it's percived as independent of the ops group, I think it'll work.
17:31:44 * plarsen is done typing
17:32:05 <nirik> ok, anything else on policy making?
17:32:26 <DiscordianUK> Not from me at this time
17:32:33 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:32:39 <nirik> any items for open floor?
17:33:27 <nirik> If not, will close out the meeting here in a few.
17:34:25 <nirik> Thanks for coming everyone!
17:34:28 <nirik> #endmeeting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the irc-support-sig mailing list