Logging of IRC Channels?
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned. I'd like to get a communal response to this, however. My generic opinion is: 1) anyone who believes any internet communication is private, without prior warning (encryption, auth, etc.), is naive. 2) the #drupal-support channel is a large font of knowledge, fixes, and help. not being able to search it, or use its resources outside of real time, is a great loss. 3) that this should not be the decision of one person. 4) feelings that it would change the "mood" of the channel is no different than being informed that a mailing list has a moderator (or is archived) or that anything you post on Drupal.org is also search-engine-able: you self-censor yourself. IRC is no less "professional" or "private" than any other medium. -- Morbus Iff ( i know a little of everything, a lot of nothing. ) 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
Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
I don't care about #drupal-support, but it is (or maybe "used to be") a longstanding agreement that #drupal wouldn't be publicly logged. I like this policy and would like to see it continue. Cheers, Gerhard
I tend to agree that #drupal should be private, including all pranks played on operators and those with "chick" in their nick ;o) And, I also think that #drupal-support should be made searchable. JMHO Robin On 10/8/06, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@killesreiter.de> wrote:
Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
I don't care about #drupal-support, but it is (or maybe "used to be") a longstanding agreement that #drupal wouldn't be publicly logged.
I like this policy and would like to see it continue.
Cheers, Gerhard
-- Robin Monks, CivicSpace Release Engineer - http://civicspacelabs.com Drupal Marketing Coordinator - http://drupal.org Encrypt! http://tinyurl.com/ffo3l - http://www.gpg4win.org/
Agreed, #drupal is to weird to show public, but #drupal-support is really usefull. [OT] I think that #drupal should move into #drupal-dev and #drupal-support should become #drupal [/OT] On 10/10/06, Robin Monks <robin@civicspacelabs.org> wrote:
I tend to agree that #drupal should be private, including all pranks played on operators and those with "chick" in their nick ;o)
And, I also think that #drupal-support should be made searchable.
JMHO
Robin
On 10/8/06, Gerhard Killesreiter <gerhard@killesreiter.de> wrote:
Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
I don't care about #drupal-support, but it is (or maybe "used to be") a longstanding agreement that #drupal wouldn't be publicly logged.
I like this policy and would like to see it continue.
Cheers, Gerhard
-- Robin Monks, CivicSpace Release Engineer - http://civicspacelabs.com Drupal Marketing Coordinator - http://drupal.org Encrypt! http://tinyurl.com/ffo3l - http://www.gpg4win.org/
On Sunday 08 October 2006 16:16, Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
I am (relatively) new here, so I have no idea what existing policies may or may not already be in place formally or informally. My first question, though: What does "publicly logging" mean? My IRC client (Gaim) logs everything I say or do in any channel or IM or PM. I know a lot of people who do that.
I'd like to get a communal response to this, however.
My generic opinion is:
1) anyone who believes any internet communication is private, without prior warning (encryption, auth, etc.), is naive.
True.
2) the #drupal-support channel is a large font of knowledge, fixes, and help. not being able to search it, or use its resources outside of real time, is a great loss.
True, although I suppose one must add "but that's what forums are for".
3) that this should not be the decision of one person.
True, with the caveat above that it may have already been decided and I just don't know about it.
4) feelings that it would change the "mood" of the channel is no different than being informed that a mailing list has a moderator (or is archived) or that anything you post on Drupal.org is also search-engine-able: you self-censor yourself. IRC is no less "professional" or "private" than any other medium.
I guess it still depends on what "publicly logging" means. If it means what I think it means, then this list is "publicly logged", as are forums. -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 larry@garfieldtech.com ICQ: 6817012 "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
On Oct 8, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Larry Garfield wrote:
On Sunday 08 October 2006 16:16, Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
I am (relatively) new here, so I have no idea what existing policies may or may not already be in place formally or informally.
My first question, though: What does "publicly logging" mean? My IRC client (Gaim) logs everything I say or do in any channel or IM or PM. I know a lot of people who do that.
AFAIK, publicly logging means the logs are posted somewhere, like a website, for public consumption. Your client's logs are private and not publicly available, they are for your reference to search through, etc.
On 08 Oct 2006, at 23:16, Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal- support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
Como'n, logging a channel does not warrant a ban. That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On Oct 8, 2006, at 10:59 PM, Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 08 Oct 2006, at 23:16, Morbus Iff wrote:
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal- support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be banned.
Como'n, logging a channel does not warrant a ban. That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys.
Drupal Development Chat | Use #drupal-support or http://drupal.org/ support for support questions. Theming discussion is on #drupal- themes. | Do not talk of consultancy fees here. Thanks. | http:// drupal.org/security | Use http://drupal.pastebin.co.uk http:// pastebin.us http://pastebin.ca for code | Read http://drupal.org/node/ 86823 for new version numbers: new version will be Drupal 5.0 not 5.0.0 | Public logging == ban. Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well? Kieran
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well?
No. http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/2006-March/000598.html , see I don't understand the "Pricing" issue? Note that I am not a US lawyer and I am not willing to even discuss this, and if I err here then I rather err on the safe side. Use private messages to talk about fees.
On 09 Oct 2006, at 13:39, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well?
No. http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/2006-March/ 000598.html , see I don't understand the "Pricing" issue? Note that I am not a US lawyer and I am not willing to even discuss this, and if I err here then I rather err on the safe side. Use private messages to talk about fees.
If companies want to exchange this information in public channels then that is _their_ business -- even if it is an illegal one. It is not our task to control or protect them or to make sure they abide to (American) law. Racism is not allowed either -- should we put that in the channel topic too? Please, let's get rid of these silly rules. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 09 Oct 2006, at 13:39, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well?
No. http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/2006-March/000598.html , see I don't understand the "Pricing" issue? Note that I am not a US lawyer and I am not willing to even discuss this, and if I err here then I rather err on the safe side. Use private messages to talk about fees.
If companies want to exchange this information in public channels then that is _their_ business -- even if it is an illegal one. It is not our task to control or protect them or to make sure they abide to (American) law. Racism is not allowed either -- should we put that in the channel topic too? Please, let's get rid of these silly rules.
The theory is that by discussing pricing in #drupal any US citizen (even if not participating) would somehow be magically tainted and fall prey to the local anti trust laws. Of course I a) don't subscribe to this point of view, b) don't care at all, and c) like the idea to remove the silly notice. Cheers, Gerhard
Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
Dries Buytaert wrote:
On 09 Oct 2006, at 13:39, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well?
No. http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/2006-March/000598.html , see I don't understand the "Pricing" issue? Note that I am not a US lawyer and I am not willing to even discuss this, and if I err here then I rather err on the safe side. Use private messages to talk about fees.
If companies want to exchange this information in public channels then that is _their_ business -- even if it is an illegal one. It is not our task to control or protect them or to make sure they abide to (American) law. Racism is not allowed either -- should we put that in the channel topic too? Please, let's get rid of these silly rules.
The theory is that by discussing pricing in #drupal any US citizen (even if not participating) would somehow be magically tainted and fall prey to the local anti trust laws.
Of course I a) don't subscribe to this point of view, b) don't care at all, and c) like the idea to remove the silly notice.
Which had d) already happened. d'oh. Cheers, Gerhard
I hereby admit that I have posted IRC logs of #drupal on my weblog. And I won't remove it. I consider any IRC channel to be public. And I definitely won't censor myself by not posting IRC logs if I feel the urge to (note that I don't post them regularly or automated) because it is a kind of free speech. If you post confidential stuff in a public place, it's your problem. Of course you may kindly ask someone to not do that, but you can't force him. Konstantin
Konstantin Käfer wrote:
I hereby admit that I have posted IRC logs of #drupal on my weblog.
And I won't remove it. I consider any IRC channel to be public. And I definitely won't censor myself by not posting IRC logs if I feel the urge to (note that I don't post them regularly or automated) because it is a kind of free speech.
If you post what you say (your speech), I won't mind. If you post what I say (my speech) I might.
If you post confidential stuff in a public place, it's your problem. Of course you may kindly ask someone to not do that, but you can't force him.
It isn't really about confidential stuff. It is about being able to call a spade a spade without fear for repercussions from unknown people further down the timeline. You probably wouldn't want anybody you talk to in a bar to later publish the conversation on a webpage either. Cheers, Gerhard
Am 09.10.2006 um 15:28 schrieb Gerhard Killesreiter:
It isn't really about confidential stuff. It is about being able to call a spade a spade without fear for repercussions from unknown people further down the timeline. You probably wouldn't want anybody you talk to in a bar to later publish the conversation on a webpage either.
That's the point: I consider #drupal a public place because anyone can join. That's a bit like a lecture in a university. Nobody controls who is allowed to join (except for bans); anyone can join. Posting private conversations between two people is something completely different. Recording telephone calls without informing the person you are talking to is also illegal in Germany. But you can't expect that nobody records when you call at a radio station to comment something. Konstantin
Can we remove the ban on "talk of consultancy fees" as well?
Also see http://www.hwg.org/resources/faqs/priceFAQ.html and consider that there are people on the channel from the USA.
A decision was made today by one of the ops of #drupal and #drupal-support: that anyone *publicly* logging the channels would be
Como'n, logging a channel does not warrant a ban. That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys.
Apparently, since you don't participate in IRC enough, your opinion warrants no merit, and the one op decision stands. -- Morbus Iff ( i am the horrible hogglewart ) 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
Apparently, since you don't participate in IRC enough, your opinion warrants no merit, and the one op decision stands.
You are twisting my words. I said, it stands for now, and I will defer to Dries' decision after the mail (which I just sent) because I was unsure he understood it. Example from #wikipedia: #wikipedia - the editors' turf | Status: Up | Public logging -> permaban | #wikicast needs your programs | Tor & CGI:IRC users: /msg an op (see #wikimedia-ops) for voice | #wikipedia-spotlight : real-time collaboration on selected articles | [[Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia_1]] 2006-Nov-04". It IS fine to have a policy like #swhack or #svn where the channel is logged. I almost never log in these and I am very cautious in what I say. I would not like this on #drupal* .
On 09 Oct 2006, at 13:51, Morbus Iff wrote:
That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys.
Apparently, since you don't participate in IRC enough, your opinion warrants no merit, and the one op decision stands.
You'll want to pro-actively ban me from the channels then, because I'll publish whatever discussion I think is worth publishing online. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
We learn something every day. If someone finds some funny we had while chatting on line and can't handle at its worth, and has negative feelings on me because of this, then I am better not to deal with her/him anyways. If I do not want my private site to be accessible outside of a certain audience, then I revoke anonymous access and hand out passwords. Now, back to work. Peace.
Como'n, logging a channel does not warrant a ban. That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys.
Loggin' privately surely does not, basically every client does that. But public? I do think this is a valid request not to publish whatever said on a public place. Or do you think the guy who said on this channel (was not me) that "i'll be the smartass around here if you don't mind. Thx" would like to see this online besides his CV ?
Loggin' privately surely does not, basically every client does that. But public? I do think this is a valid request not to publish whatever said on a public place. Or do you think the guy who said on this channel (was not me) that "i'll be the smartass around here if you don't mind. Thx" would like to see this online besides his CV ?
As I've said before, if this guy thinks that his internet communication is private, without prior means of protection (encryption, auth, not merely "trust"), then he should be self-censoring himself, /especially/ if he's trying to get a job. Arguing your line of reasoning is folly. -- Morbus Iff ( anything else in the box, pandora? ) 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
On 9-Oct-06, at 7:54 AM, Karoly Negyesi wrote:
Como'n, logging a channel does not warrant a ban. That's just ... stupid. Get real, guys.
Loggin' privately surely does not, basically every client does that. But public? I do think this is a valid request not to publish whatever said on a public place. Or do you think the guy who said on this channel (was not me) that "i'll be the smartass around here if you don't mind. Thx" would like to see this online besides his CV ?
shall I stand up and take credit for that line? I have to say, I agree with Morbus, that if you don't treat your online communications as being for public consumption you're being a bit naive. I've logged every IRC channel I've ever been in for several years, and at times have published stats and portions of logs publicly. I expect in IRC that others are doing the same. Please don't create silly rules on my behalf :) -- James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah@walkah.net
Op zondag 8 oktober 2006 23:16, schreef Morbus Iff:
3) that this should not be the decision of one person.
Just like the forums and the ML, IRC is not by or for one person alone. Or even a select group. Its a community plumbing thing, lets keep it that, let us all at least try to keep such decisions as (public logging == ban) open. The fact it had to trickle trough to the devel mailinglist scares me a little. It gives me the feeling that "community plumbing" was not in place here. On the other hand, if such a select group decides things others don't like, we are free to open #drupal-devel :p Bèr -- | Bèr Kessels | webschuur.com | Drupal, Joomla and Ruby on Rails web development | | Jabber & Google Talk: ber@jabber.webschuur.com | | http://bler.webschuur.com | http://www.webschuur.com |
participants (12)
-
Brian Puccio -
Bèr Kessels -
Dries Buytaert -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
James Walker -
Johan Forngren -
Karoly Negyesi -
Kieran Lal -
Konstantin Käfer -
Larry Garfield -
Morbus Iff -
Robin Monks