Re: GR proposal: code of conduct
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Ian Jackson
<ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes ("Re: GR proposal: code of conduct"):
>> Much of irc are semiprivate chatter and socializing and not really
>> something that should be available to the wider public.
>
> I don't think this is realistic for channels which anyone in the world
> can join. There are no doubt many people who have private logs and
> there would be nothing stopping anyone making such a log public
> without our consent. If we objected we would have to engage in
> ridiculous and easily-defeated forensics (and perhaps disruptive
> interventions) to try to discover who the "leaker" was.
>
> Is it really the case that making the logs available as public text
> files produces too much search engine exposure etc. (which is I guess
> the real concern) ?
>
> Ian.
I think we might be overthinking IRC bans. In my mind, IRC bans aren't
a big deal, as even a faultily configured IRC client can (rightfully)
trigger these bans. It's also fairly obvious to others in the channel
why bans are instituted. Also, since IRC bans don't trigger a
project-wide ban from mailing lists, bugtracker, etc, I don't believe
we really have to worry about instituting new IRC based tracking
processes. IE: IRC is a sometimes flaky, informal transient/dynamic
communications medium, if it breaks or someone is banned for having a
faulty client, they can always fall back to email or other more formal
communications methods..
Thanks,
Brian
P.S. - I sidestepped the question about publicly logging IRC channels
as I have mixed feelings on the topic, and don't feel it's required to
agree to the CoC and implement it.
Reply to: