Summary/Minutes from today's irc support sig meeting (2012-05-10)

Kevin Fenzi kevin at
Thu May 10 17:49:50 UTC 2012

#fedora-meeting: IRC Support SIG (2012-05-10)

Meeting started by nirik at 17:00:00 UTC. The full logs are available at

Meeting summary
* init process  (nirik, 17:00:00)

* Week in review  (nirik, 17:01:28)
  * LINK:
    (nirik, 17:01:28)

* Tickets  (nirik, 17:04:06)
  * LINK:   (nirik,

* new proposed #fedora-social op  (nirik, 17:04:28)
  * LINK:   (nirik,

* Open Floor  (nirik, 17:25:45)

Meeting ended at 17:48:36 UTC.

Action Items

Action Items, by person
  * (none)

People Present (lines said)
* nirik (69)
* dcr226 (63)
* EvilBob (50)
* Sonar_Gal (20)
* nb-phone (14)
* Southern_Gentlem (3)
* N3LRX (3)
* zodbot (3)
* Khaytsus (2)
* DiscordianUK (1)
17:00:00 <nirik> #startmeeting IRC Support SIG (2012-05-10)
17:00:00 <zodbot> Meeting started Thu May 10 17:00:00 2012 UTC.  The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at
17:00:00 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:00 <nirik> #meetingname irc-support-sig
17:00:00 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'irc-support-sig'
17:00:00 <nirik> #topic init process
17:00:00 * Khaytsus sets out tea and biscuits
17:00:24 * N3LRX 
17:00:26 * EvilBob 
17:00:26 <nirik> who all is around today?
17:00:32 * DiscordianUK is
17:00:44 * dcr226 tips his cap
17:01:20 <nirik> ok, lets go ahead and dive in.
17:01:28 <nirik> #topic Week in review
17:01:28 <nirik>
17:01:42 <nirik> anything from this last week?
17:02:20 <nirik> I'll note that as f17 comes close to release, updates-testing is disabled now by default. This may cause issues for f17prerelease people. See:
17:02:34 * Sonar_Gal 
17:03:48 <nirik> nothing else really stood out for me in channel this last week... pretty typical
17:04:06 <nirik> #topic Tickets
17:04:07 <nirik>
17:04:15 <nirik> we have one ticket, but it's our next topic... so...
17:04:28 <nirik> #topic new proposed #fedora-social op
17:04:28 <nirik>
17:05:01 <nirik> anything anyone would like to add thats not in the ticket?
17:05:08 <EvilBob> I disagree, from what I have seen he is not active in the channel enough to be effective.
17:05:18 * nirik notes 7 days for the ticket ends later today... it was filed after last weeks meeting.
17:05:29 <Sonar_Gal> yes it was
17:05:54 <Sonar_Gal> I think he is active enough in the channel it is a social channel not a support channel
17:05:58 * dcr226 has nothing to add, is still -1, and would still love to see nb more active on -social to make an informed decision
17:06:01 <nirik> so, I see +5 / -2 then?
17:06:11 <EvilBob> There is also the issue of his insistence to have a presence in the ops channel after it was established what channels the group manages.
17:06:38 <dcr226> also, I'd urge folks to exercise caution when appointing a non-active user as an op
17:06:49 <Sonar_Gal> then why are other non-fedora social op's in there
17:07:16 <EvilBob> Additionally I feel there are users of the channel that are more qualified and should be considered first if we are going to be adding ops.
17:07:22 <nirik> "Other folks can be allowed by nomination from an op and a second from any other operator" <- I think any no ops there are under this.
17:07:48 * dcr226 appreciates that "active" is subjective....I don't think we need to argue the finer points of "active" in this case
17:08:07 <nirik> EvilBob: yeah, we could nominate some more for sure.
17:08:17 <dcr226> EvilBob, +1, but maybe should nomin....
17:08:20 <dcr226> yeah, what he said
17:08:28 <Sonar_Gal> nirik, that's fine but I get tired of hearing he can't be in the channel all the time when I don't care if he is ther
17:08:46 <Sonar_Gal> neither do others
17:09:08 <nirik> anyhow, I think this passes... we move on? unless folks want to change votes, or the like.
17:09:15 <EvilBob> At one time there was a reason they were there, with the -noc channel that is no longer the case.
17:09:42 <EvilBob> Had he left the channel after the new guidelines were established my opinion might be different.
17:09:56 <dcr226> Question: Is the over-arching purpose of the nomination/subsequent votes to solidify nb's position and presence in #fedora-ops?
17:10:12 <Sonar_Gal> Hell no
17:10:17 <dcr226> because there are many other active users in -social
17:10:17 * nirik sure hopes not.
17:10:22 <EvilBob> His belligerence on this item shows a lack of being willing to work with others.
17:10:33 <Sonar_Gal> And EvilBob you would have never nominated him as you like to argue to much with him
17:10:38 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, so why not mock, tw2113, kc8fi, tatica?
17:10:42 <Sonar_Gal> No it doesn't
17:10:58 <EvilBob> Sonar_Gal: as the results of HIS actions I do take issue with him, yes.
17:11:08 <dcr226> any of those users above are very active, and have positive influence
17:11:09 <Sonar_Gal> whatever
17:11:22 <Sonar_Gal> yes mock is active but only during working hours
17:11:34 <Sonar_Gal> same with most where nb is on non working hours
17:11:38 * nirik also finds N3LRX active at late hours and good to steer the channel right. ;)
17:11:45 <dcr226> nirik, yeah..the list could go on
17:11:56 <EvilBob> nirik: He is very good at that.
17:12:01 <Sonar_Gal> yes I would agree N3LRX is good and should be nominated
17:12:25 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, my reason for asking the above question was; if that is the case...why can't we just vote on nb's presence in -ops
17:12:31 <dcr226> I have little issue with it personally
17:12:33 <EvilBob> I will nominate N3LRX once the existing guidelines are enforced
17:12:36 <nirik> dcr226: I thought we already did in fact.
17:12:46 <dcr226> nirik, oh..ok, I must have been elsewhere :)
17:12:50 <dcr226> or goofing off somewhere
17:12:55 <Sonar_Gal> you know what maybe I will think deeply on getting rid of my op's in -social
17:13:03 <nirik> unless we need to re-nominate and vote on people after the new voting guidelines...
17:13:04 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, naawwwww
17:13:07 <Sonar_Gal> Tired of the political nonsense
17:13:08 <EvilBob> dcr226: It did not happen on the list or on the trac instance
17:13:09 <nirik> which we can do if people really want.
17:13:28 <nirik> EvilBob: because it was before the formal guidelines. I'd be happy to do it again if you want.
17:13:42 <dcr226> nirik, vote to vote to vote to vote...could get messy
17:13:49 <EvilBob> nirik: will YOU ask him to leave until that happens?
17:14:05 <nirik> there are 4 or 5 others also (at least)
17:14:12 <dcr226> I have no problem with nb as a person whatsoever...I'm cautious of voting in a non-active user as pretty much ends there
17:14:22 <EvilBob> nirik: so we can chat openly in private about his -social nomination?
17:14:54 <EvilBob> nirik: once the new guidelines were established at least one user that had been welcome there did leave
17:14:57 <nirik> EvilBob: have you felt restricted in what you can discuss?
17:14:58 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, don't quit being op on -social, there's no need and the channel would loose lots if you do that
17:15:26 <EvilBob> nirik: I have felt restricted in what I can say for quite some time in there
17:15:52 <dcr226> *also*, Its not specific that I worry about voting nb...I worry about where this could end (voting non-active users in)
17:15:55 <nirik> so, you want us to revote for all non ops that were previously invited to the channel again now that we have rules?
17:16:11 <dcr226> I'm sure that nb would do a good job....for my mind he has to _do_ that job first
17:16:42 <EvilBob> nirik: there is nothing in the guidelines that says they are grandfthered in
17:16:42 <Sonar_Gal> dcr226, he does in many other channels he has op's in
17:16:54 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, sure, no dispute there
17:16:55 <Sonar_Gal> That's my point he knows the rules and guidelines
17:17:15 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, I worry about setting a precedent that non-active users can get op
17:17:20 <nirik> EvilBob: ok, it seems pointless to me, but sure.
17:17:36 <EvilBob> Sonar_Gal: Irrelevant, they are not channels this group has supervisory control over.
17:17:38 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, next time it won't be could be any number of users, if they are popular enough to get enough +1's, they're op on #fedora
17:17:54 <Sonar_Gal> haha
17:18:26 <nirik> so, I can file tickets for each of the non op people after the meeting.
17:18:42 <dcr226> Sonar_Gal, I'll give you an example..if/when this goes through, if I nominate tatica for op on #fedora, she's popular enough to get a majority vote
17:18:44 <EvilBob> nirik: you never answered my question
17:18:48 <dcr226> would this be a good thing? I think not
17:18:49 <EvilBob> nirik: will YOU ask him to leave until that happens?
17:19:11 <nirik> EvilBob: no, because this ticket we are discussing is passing, and thus he is an op in social, so he can stay.
17:19:46 <nirik> I guess I can ask ricky, jds2001, sonar_logger1, and pingou to leave tho
17:19:49 <EvilBob> nirik: as you pointed out this ticket has not had a full 7 days so it should be voted on next week, not this week
17:20:05 <dcr226> nirik, separate issue to the ticket imho
17:20:18 <EvilBob> nirik: Allowing this week and this meeting to allow discussion
17:20:19 <dcr226> or at least I hope it is
17:20:38 <nirik> EvilBob: "Voting members have 7 days to vote, majority vote determines outcome." that doesn't say that we wait another week.
17:20:48 <nirik> dcr226: which is?
17:21:04 <dcr226> nirik, the issue is nb's nomination for op if I'm not mistaken
17:21:08 <EvilBob> nirik: It says 7 days, as you stated it has not been 7 days
17:21:22 <nirik> dcr226: yes.
17:21:32 <dcr226> not "who is allowed to be in -ops"
17:21:44 <dcr226> maybe I lost the thread here somewhere :/
17:21:46 <dcr226> cock
17:21:48 <EvilBob> dcr226: It's a sub item if anything
17:21:48 <dcr226> ups, sorry
17:22:05 <nirik> EvilBob: right, so in 2 hours it will be 7 days... the votes can be tallyed?
17:22:31 <EvilBob> nirik: I would think that votes would be counted at the meeting following the 7 days
17:22:46 <Southern_Gentlem> *yawn*
17:22:56 * nirik wouldn't... I'd be happy to ask nb to wait a week if you think there's some actual reason.
17:23:28 <nb-phone> I don't see how it would change......
17:23:54 <dcr226> I don't think it needs another week, I just would like everyone who has voted, to re-consider their vote based on the lack of activity. Not specific to this case, but where it might lead in the future
17:23:57 <nirik> on the other side there's no urgency...
17:23:59 <dcr226> if nothing changes...then so bit
17:24:04 <dcr226> erm, so be it
17:24:06 <nb-phone> It says a week.  Not a week and wait till a meeting.  EvilBob why don't you follow the policy
17:24:13 <EvilBob> Does not matter really the guidelines are not being followed anyhow.
17:24:24 <nb-phone> EvilBob: How are they not?
17:25:01 <nirik> anyhow, I don't think we are getting anywhere here. Shall we call this topic done and move on?
17:25:45 <nirik> #topic Open Floor
17:25:54 <EvilBob> If "<nb-phone> I don't see how it would change..." why would another week bother you so much?
17:26:00 <nirik> should we discuss the re-nomination of people who are not ops to be invited to fedora-ops?
17:26:09 <dcr226> wait, hold is nb-phone  op on -social now?
17:26:16 <nirik> I'm happy to re-nominate them all, and ask for seconds.
17:26:23 <Southern_Gentlem> 2nd
17:26:26 <nirik> dcr226: not for 2 hours at least.
17:26:27 * dcr226 wonders what "done" means wrt the topic
17:26:30 <dcr226> oh..I see
17:27:22 <nb-phone> nirik: Vote concludes after 1 week still?
17:27:33 <dcr226> in 2 hours
17:27:49 <nirik> I think so. If you want to be nice and wait another week for more discussion thats up to you.
17:28:11 <nirik> or if someone wants to propose a clarification on the 7 days rule.
17:28:17 <Southern_Gentlem> ok so we are back down to a bitchfest and getting nothing done let me know when there is a productive meeting
17:28:22 <dcr226> I don't think this should run on for another week
17:28:27 * nirik has had a hard week, so doesn't really want to expend more energy on it
17:28:34 <dcr226> if nothing changes in the next 2 hours, then its done imho
17:28:36 <nb-phone> nirik: My thought is that EvilBob wants to fuss because he is not getting his way.  I say do like he says and follow the policy
17:28:44 <nb-phone> So tally the votes in 2 hrs
17:28:52 <EvilBob> There was enough discussion alone that I think another week is justified.
17:29:23 <EvilBob> to allow people to read the logs and eveluate their votes
17:29:28 <nb-phone> EvilBob: Thats not in the policy.  You want to follow the policy.  Follow it then.
17:30:54 <EvilBob> dcr226: 2 hours is hardly enough time for people to review the logs of this meeting and discussion
17:31:28 <nb-phone> EvilBob: They had a week to read the ticket
17:31:31 <EvilBob> nb-phone: talking about not getting one's way, how about pointing that finger at the one that nominated you.
17:31:47 <nb-phone> Bob you complain about not following the policy but yet you want to not follow the policy
17:31:49 <nirik> ok, any other items for open floor?
17:32:04 <nirik> I dont think this discussion is going in a productive way.
17:32:14 <EvilBob> <Sonar_Gal> you know what maybe I will think deeply on getting rid of my op's in -social
17:32:15 <nb-phone> Me either I suggest we move on
17:32:50 <EvilBob> talk about taking your ball and going home
17:33:10 <Sonar_Gal> EvilBob, I will and probably will in the future so I don't have to deal with you
17:33:14 <dcr226> nirik, yeah...I'd got a suggestion for getting more support tickets
17:33:17 <nirik> Sonar_Gal: please don't.
17:33:20 <EvilBob> Sonar_Gal: Sounds familiar
17:33:25 <nirik> dcr226: oh, do tell?
17:33:42 <dcr226> nirik, I think...kill the fedbot spammer for a week, I think eyes have gotten used to it
17:33:56 <dcr226> I think its "hiding in plain sight" nowadays
17:34:07 <nirik> yeah, could be. or change wording again.
17:34:10 <dcr226> so people aren't reacting to it
17:34:36 <nirik> could we make it do a random rotation perhaps?
17:34:40 <dcr226> I think making it go away for a week will work nicely...we won't get any feedback for a week (nothing new there), but might get some next week when it comes back on
17:34:52 <dcr226> just a thought
17:34:58 <nirik> ok, and that will be the run up to release too...
17:35:11 <nirik> sure, +1 here... any other thoughts?
17:35:36 <EvilBob> I would +1 that bringing it back post release
17:35:48 <dcr226> EvilBob, yeah...anything that gives it a rest
17:35:53 <dcr226> I think people aren't seeing it anymore
17:36:04 <nirik> yeah, I haven't seen anyone even comment on it recently.
17:36:53 * nirik sees no one objecting...
17:37:06 <EvilBob> Again, I ask the group to delay the nomination vote until the next meeting to allow everyone to read this meeting's log
17:37:35 * nirik doesn't really think there's any new info in the meeting that wasn't in the ticket.
17:37:37 <Sonar_Gal> What gets me is everyone has had a week to comment and reply
17:37:41 <EvilBob> But apparently nb-phone is to scared of what the results might be.
17:38:00 <EvilBob> Most things have been a full week and vote
17:38:14 <dcr226> I'd like folks not present, who are members of the sig time to consider the ramifications of the yeah, I'd like more time I guess
17:38:56 <nb-phone> EvilBob: You are jus mad you aren't getting your way
17:39:03 * nirik dislikes always delaying at the last minute at the meeting. we did this for the voting rules for like 3 weeks... nothing changed. But sure, if nb wishes to hold his nomination for a week that would be fine with me.
17:39:09 <dcr226> nb-phone, I don't think its that at all
17:39:09 <EvilBob> nb-phone: Not at all, I only think it is fair
17:39:43 <EvilBob> nb-phone: there has been a precedent for this in our votes in the past
17:39:56 <nb-phone> nirik: I do not.  EvilBob is the only one who is really complaining.  People had a week to read the ticket and if they cant manage to rwspond in a week then...
17:40:22 <EvilBob> we have always had a week to discuss then vote
17:40:30 * dcr226 notes zodiac was nominated for op last year....could have easily had enough votes to make it happen..would this have been a good thing??
17:40:48 <dcr226> s/nominated/very nearly nominated, if not actually nominated
17:41:19 <Khaytsus> I've never seen nb troll and attack everyone nearby.....
17:41:31 <EvilBob> dcr226: Was nominated by me, he got sick of the argument over lack of policy
17:41:31 <nirik> dcr226: I don't think there were sufficent votes.
17:42:03 <nb-phone> Can we just move on and follow the dang policy?
17:42:05 <dcr226> nirik, there was just one vote point is, if someone was popular enough, they could get op...regardless of ability
17:42:34 <nirik> dcr226: popular with voting members, yeah.
17:42:47 <dcr226> yeah, that shouldn't happen imho...its not a boy's club
17:42:57 <nirik> dcr226: if you have a proposal on how to amend the rules to avoid that problem, please do propose the change
17:43:01 <dcr226> Heh :)
17:43:16 <nirik> anyhow, I'm going to close the meeting in about a minute if nothing else comes up.
17:43:18 <EvilBob> yes dcr226 propose a change after the fact
17:43:50 <EvilBob> dcr226: that is how they pushed the fucking guidelines in on a week they knew I could not make the meeting
17:44:16 * nirik rolls eyes.
17:44:20 <EvilBob> Sorry for my language
17:44:27 <dcr226> I think this will come back to bite the sig on the ass fwiw
17:44:42 <EvilBob> dcr226: Oh it will
17:44:44 <dcr226> not with nb...but the precedent that has been set
17:44:52 * dcr226 eof :)
17:45:14 <EvilBob> dcr226: every vote from now on does not need a full week with a meeting to discuss
17:45:30 <nb-phone> Yes it only needs 1 week since the ticket is filed
17:45:49 <EvilBob> again, one full week then vote
17:46:18 <EvilBob> not vote before it can be discussed in a meeting
17:46:29 <N3LRX> I have an idea. How about amending the policy to require op nominations -before- a scheduled meeting. Then at the next meeting the nomination can be reviewed at the following meeting then voted on by adding the vote to the ticket. Then the result can be enacted upon the next meeting. That may prevent this sort of go-around from happening in the future. Does this make sense?
17:46:53 <dcr226> N3LRX, I think that is what EvilBob is getting at...and I THINK that is what happened when I got +o
17:46:57 <dcr226> (IIRC)
17:47:02 <EvilBob> N3LRX: That is how I intepreted the rules
17:47:06 <nirik> dcr226: we had no formal policy then, but it could be.
17:47:13 <dcr226> yeah
17:47:45 <EvilBob> N3LRX: This is appearing to be what is called a "quick trial" in the legal system
17:47:56 <nirik> I'm not opposed to clarifying the rules that way. N3LRX: can you file a ticket with the exact wording diff?
17:48:22 <N3LRX> sure.
17:48:33 <nirik> anyhow, I need to get ready for my next meeting... so thanks for coming
17:48:36 <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 meetingminutes mailing list