Hi
If we have to retain public archives of all Fedora IRC channels, what would be the best way to do that? Is there a online services that offer this or should we running bots on all of these channels or something else? There are many instances where contributors are not able to participate in a meeting or discussions. Having public archives would help them go back and look at what was discussed anytime they want.
Rahul
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:00:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
If we have to retain public archives of all Fedora IRC channels
have to, or would like to?
what would be the best way to do that? Is there a online services that offer this or should we running bots on all of these channels or something else? There are many instances where contributors are not able to participate in a meeting or discussions. Having public archives would help them go back and look at what was discussed anytime they want.
I run a boringly simple eggdrop (mdomschbot) in a few channels, which I use to generate the FPB meeting minutes. I don't believe there's a service on FreeNode (ala ChanServ) that offers this, which is why I set up my own bot. Are you thinking such a bot could be run by Infrastructure or somesuch?
Thanks, Matt
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:00:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
If we have to retain public archives of all Fedora IRC channels
have to, or would like to?
Like to I guess.
what would be the best way to do that? Is there a online services that offer this or should we running bots on all of these channels or something else? There are many instances where contributors are not able to participate in a meeting or discussions. Having public archives would help them go back and look at what was discussed anytime they want.
I run a boringly simple eggdrop (mdomschbot) in a few channels, which I use to generate the FPB meeting minutes. I don't believe there's a service on FreeNode (ala ChanServ) that offers this, which is why I set up my own bot. Are you thinking such a bot could be run by Infrastructure or somesuch?
Yes. If we are running such a bot across all channels, it could probably do other useful things too. For example, there is a cluebot in #fedorabot channel which is very useful for bug triaging.
Rahul
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 19:38 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:00:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
If we have to retain public archives of all Fedora IRC channels
have to, or would like to?
Like to I guess.
what would be the best way to do that? Is there a online services that offer this or should we running bots on all of these channels or something else? There are many instances where contributors are not able to participate in a meeting or discussions. Having public archives would help them go back and look at what was discussed anytime they want.
I run a boringly simple eggdrop (mdomschbot) in a few channels, which I use to generate the FPB meeting minutes. I don't believe there's a service on FreeNode (ala ChanServ) that offers this, which is why I set up my own bot. Are you thinking such a bot could be run by Infrastructure or somesuch?
Yes. If we are running such a bot across all channels, it could probably do other useful things too. For example, there is a cluebot in #fedorabot channel which is very useful for bug triaging.
Please don't run cluebot in -devel. Or, more specifically, don't have it do bugzilla lookups based on keywords. It gets very annoying. Having it done on explicit request would be ok I suppose.
josh
Josh Boyer wrote:
Please don't run cluebot in -devel. Or, more specifically, don't have it do bugzilla lookups based on keywords. It gets very annoying. Having it done on explicit request would be ok I suppose.
I dont maintain cluebot. Max Kanat-Alexander from http://www.fedorafaq.org/ does. That was just an example of where bots could serve other uses besides logging discussions.
Rahul
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@fedoraproject.org) said:
have to, or would like to?
Like to I guess.
If I may ask... why?
Bill
I did explain that in the original mail. For contributors and users to look back at what discussions happened in any Fedora channel at any time. Meetings planned or adhoc. Questions that were answered before etc.
Rahul
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I did explain that in the original mail. For contributors and users to look back at what discussions happened in any Fedora channel at any time. Meetings planned or adhoc. Questions that were answered before etc.
I wonder how useful something like that would end up being, just as a bunch of raw data. At least the mailman archives are pretty easy to navigate. Piles of IRC logs... shudder.
Without some way of organizing the information in the logs, it kind of seems like a waste of time, no? And wouldn't the time spent organizing (or writing a program to organize) that info be better spent elsewhere in Fedora?
My .02
--Max
Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I did explain that in the original mail. For contributors and users to look back at what discussions happened in any Fedora channel at any time. Meetings planned or adhoc. Questions that were answered before etc.
I wonder how useful something like that would end up being, just as a bunch of raw data. At least the mailman archives are pretty easy to navigate. Piles of IRC logs... shudder.
Without some way of organizing the information in the logs, it kind of seems like a waste of time, no? And wouldn't the time spent organizing (or writing a program to organize) that info be better spent elsewhere in Fedora?
It's just a matter of running a bot (which already exists) on all the channels. I guess it wouldnt take more than an hour to setup for someone more familiar with it.
Rahul
Rahul Sundaram schrieb:
It's just a matter of running a bot (which already exists) on all the channels. I guess it wouldnt take more than an hour to setup for someone more familiar with it.
Just playing devils advocate and quoting the last section from http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml :
---- If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels, most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs.
If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide identifying information which is hard to filter.
If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own. ----
I think the work and the implication to realize logging are not worth the trouble and the benefits.
CU thl
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 18:28 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Rahul Sundaram schrieb:
It's just a matter of running a bot (which already exists) on all the channels. I guess it wouldnt take more than an hour to setup for someone more familiar with it.
Just playing devils advocate and quoting the last section from http://freenode.net/channel_guidelines.shtml :
If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels, most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs.
If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide identifying information which is hard to filter.
If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can. Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will most likely be your own.
I think the work and the implication to realize logging are not worth the trouble and the benefits.
+1
no logs.
-sv
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 22:44 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Max Spevack wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I did explain that in the original mail. For contributors and users to look back at what discussions happened in any Fedora channel at any time. Meetings planned or adhoc. Questions that were answered before etc.
I wonder how useful something like that would end up being, just as a bunch of raw data. At least the mailman archives are pretty easy to navigate. Piles of IRC logs... shudder.
Without some way of organizing the information in the logs, it kind of seems like a waste of time, no? And wouldn't the time spent organizing (or writing a program to organize) that info be better spent elsewhere in Fedora?
It's just a matter of running a bot (which already exists) on all the channels. I guess it wouldnt take more than an hour to setup for someone more familiar with it.
I could see running one on #fedora-meeting, but the folks having meetings there aren't having any problem getting their minutes and logs out, so this seems like overkill. Speaking for Docs (or at least as a single FDSCo member), I doubt we'd want one in our channel. It's an important social structure to have graduations of publicity, from highest to lowest:
1. Web pages, wiki, blogs 2. Mailing lists 3. IRC/IM 4. Private email 5. IRC/IM PrivMsg 6. Phone 7. PGP/GPG-encrypted ninja carrier pigeon?
We can ensure transparency by carrying things up the stack as needed. It's an important part of FOSS leadership to actually *do* that work, and we should deal with failures in a less drastic way than by eliminating levels of privacy that I think are necessary social structures. People need to feel they have a place to go "off the record" and relax a little bit, and not worry about every word being tracked for all eternity. There's already plenty of ways to embarrass oneself publicly (some of which have absolutely nothing to do with pubs)!
So, +1 to "no bots" generally, except in #fedora-meeting where it would be expected and not unwelcome, even if completely redundant.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:55:26 -0500, "Paul W. Frields" stickster@gmail.com wrote:
[...] People need to feel they have a place to go "off the record" and relax a little bit, and not worry about every word being tracked for all eternity. There's already plenty of ways to embarrass oneself publicly (some of which have absolutely nothing to do with pubs)!
Such people need to stay away from a computer, I'm afraid. To conunt on an IRC channel not being logged is hugely retarded. I find the the argument for not doing it officially persuasive, but mostly because of the waste of resources angle.
-- Pete
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
Such people need to stay away from a computer, I'm afraid. To conunt on an IRC channel not being logged is hugely retarded. I find the the argument for not doing it officially persuasive, but mostly because of the waste of resources angle.
The logging doesn't matter as such - I keep logs, and grep for what I need, but publishing them is a rotten idea. The fedora-* channels right now are plain and simple, they're best left that way.
On 2/20/07, Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It's just a matter of running a bot (which already exists) on all the channels. I guess it wouldnt take more than an hour to setup for someone more familiar with it.
In general, I think most of the discussions on most of the channels aren't worth the diskspace to log or the cpu cycles to grep. If you log indescrimately, you're gonna catch a heck of a lot of noise. A signal to noise ratio worthy of Google's best search agorithm gurus.
That being said, I've found the availability of the irclogs in the wiki from pre-annouced/agenda'd meetings as a useful resource, In the same way I find audio/video recording archives of real-life public town meetings to be useful. And of course I mean ogg vorbis and ogg theora archives of public town meetings.
-jef"Hmm what would the Fedora version of C-SPAN be called.... F-AN... Fedora Affairs Network?"spaleta