Re: [development] Logging of IRC Channels?
On 10/9/2006 8:27:42 AM, Morbus Iff (morbus@disobey.com) wrote:
FWIW, if /I/ was providing the logs as a /historical archive/, then no, I wouldn't take out the link, as that would be rewriting history. Were I to use the logs for, say, searching via Druplicon, then certainly, I /would/ remove the link because it doesn't impact negatively on legitimate searches.
What's wrong with simply inserting <link removed by request> into your archive? In my case, it's my family site, which I mentioned in the channel last May. I've since decided I'd rather not have it showing up in Google and was taking a look around to see if there was any references to it still. If I had found your historical archive and asked you to take my family site out of it, you really would refuse? I find that surprising. Even the big internet archive won't archive things that they are asked not to (via robots.txt).
if anything should be done about it. Then all Hell broke loose. LOL
Which is all my fault.
I don't know about that. Seems like there were a lot of people jumping on this. I didn't realize I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest that even pulled Dries in! Michelle
you to take my family site out of it, you really would refuse? I find that surprising. Even the big internet archive won't archive things that they are asked not to (via robots.txt).
Because there's a big difference between not archiving something entirely ("I will not archive Michelle's website") and modifying the archive ("I will search and replace all text in which Michelle said this."). One is a blanket all or nothing. Another is a modification of a whole -- if one is willing to do that, the entire integrity of the archive comes into question in regards to what was changed but was NOT disclosed to the viewer. Likewise, hiding specific web pages (a single part of a whole) is an entirely different matter - that causes very little break in flow or conversation (unless, of course, you choose to hide say, chapter 7 of a 30 chapter book). The equivalent "hiding" in an IRC log ("hide all my text") is entirely disruptive.
Which is all my fault.
I don't know about that. Seems like there were a lot of people jumping
No, no, it was. I was told as much ;) -- Morbus Iff ( rotinom ruoy edisni deppart mi pleH ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
I don't know about that. Seems like there were a lot of people jumping on this. I didn't realize I was going to stir up such a hornet's nest that even pulled Dries in!
No worries, Michelle. No one is putting a blame on you. This is not about what you did, but everything about figuring out a policy that works for us. It's a good discussion to have so thanks for triggering it. ;-) I think the best thing to do is to look at #drupal as a public channel (common sense) and to keep that in mind. If you want to share the URL of your private website without it getting logged, send the URL in private. Like Konstantin said, you can't expect people not to record your phone call to a public broadcast station. Similarly, you shouldn't e-mail your phone number to a public mailing list, if you don't want more than one specific person to have your phone number (and call you). -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
e-mail your phone number to a public mailing list, if you don't want more than one specific person to have your phone number (and call you).
Yeah, people use WHOIS for that. ;) -- Morbus Iff ( tomorrow never comes until it's too late ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
Post a #drupal FAQ, and point to it in the topic. Put your channel rules in the FAQ, not the topic. Simple!
participants (4)
-
Dries Buytaert -
Michelle Cox -
Morbus Iff -
Rowan Kerr