| 1 |
Lukasz Damentko wrote: |
| 2 |
> Fair enough. Let me wrap up the IRC part. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 1. I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our |
| 5 |
> developer being banned from Freenode without providing us with a |
| 6 |
> reason. The situation looks like one of Freenode staffers overreacted |
| 7 |
> over something Chris said during previous Council meeting and banned |
| 8 |
> him to prevent him from attending next meetings when he was supposed |
| 9 |
> to provide more information on the CoC topic. The ban was removed |
| 10 |
> after an hour, but they still refuse to provide us with reasons for it |
| 11 |
> which looks like (mostly because we weren't shown any sane |
| 12 |
> justification for the ban) a cover up operation. It would be good if |
| 13 |
> Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed |
| 14 |
> explanation from Freenode staff. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 2. I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where |
| 17 |
> third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. |
| 18 |
> Like our own small and created just for this purpose IRC server. A |
| 19 |
> situation when a third party may disallow our developer from attending |
| 20 |
> a meeting without even telling us why isn't the healthiest one. We |
| 21 |
> should be independent from such decisions of third parties so they |
| 22 |
> can't politically influence Council decisions by removing people who |
| 23 |
> are inconvenient for them. Now when it (most probably) happened once, |
| 24 |
> we have no other choice but to believe it's possible it will happen |
| 25 |
> again. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> 3. I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias |
| 28 |
> instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The |
| 29 |
> alias would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we |
| 30 |
> ever decide to do so. Debian did exactly the same a couple of months |
| 31 |
> ago prior to them moving out to OFTC |
| 32 |
> (http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060604) so maybe it would be a |
| 33 |
> good idea to have this for Gentoo too. Infra (Shyam Mani) say it isn't |
| 34 |
> a problem at all to create and maintain it, we in fact already have |
| 35 |
> something like this pointing at Freenode, it would be just a question |
| 36 |
> of updating that alias and updating our docs with it. It would |
| 37 |
> increase our independence from Freenode and make future network |
| 38 |
> switching much easier should we ever decide it's time to part our ways |
| 39 |
> with our current IRC service provider. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> The intention behind all three items is to increase our independence |
| 42 |
> from our IRC service provider. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Kind regards, |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Lukasz Damentko |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
1) IRC |
| 51 |
I second all the points made above. And I want to add another reason for |
| 52 |
considering to move away from Freenode: we have been waiting for ages to |
| 53 |
get more/new Group Contacts, but Freenode has been unable to help us, |
| 54 |
being severely understaffed and backlogged. We should not have to rely |
| 55 |
on just one person being a Group Contact for Gentoo. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
2) Continued presence of forcefully retired devs |
| 58 |
It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for |
| 59 |
anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places |
| 60 |
where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What |
| 61 |
good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be |
| 62 |
disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our |
| 63 |
policy on this point. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Regards, |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Ben de Groot |
Archives