[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: relayb0t


On ഞായര്‍ 11 സെപ്റ്റംബര്‍ 2016 08:10 വൈകു, Vasudev Kamath wrote:

> I share the same opinion with Jonas. Its trying to bridge 2 different
> rooms working on something totally different things.

The same room which was once accused of "forking existing community", suddenly
became "different room working on something totally different things". Great.

Regarding the comments about adding documentation and a mail to the list
describing the working, I agree. In the same sense, do add some documentation
about what all is permitted in debian-in IRC channel and whether it is limited
to discussions between people part of "Debian IN" alioth group or to "Debian
Contributors/Users from India (and International, of course. :) )".

If it is latter, both rooms are working on same thing - "Contributing to
Debian". And that is on-topic for both rooms.

If it is former, I propose we form a new IRC channel for debian-dug-in, where
_all_ contributors to Debian from India (or, all members of this mailing list)
can communicate, not the elitist ones from Debian IN alioth group.

> If some discussion happens in #debian-in IRC and all of a sudden if a
> bot comes in the middle dumping some thing totally unrelated stuff
> people will get totally annoyed.

Come on, dude. We (users of XMPP) can see that some discussion is going on in
IRC from the XMPP channel itself(The bot _is_ bidirectional). I don't think
anyone will interrupt it, knowingly. How does everyone being on IRC solve the
issue of someone talking something entirely different than the current

 If it is a person talking it can be
> understandable but here its not a person but a bot representing people
> who are not even present on IRC channel.

The person's XMPP nick is part of the message that relaybot delivers. When the
message is from relaybot, can't it be understood (yes, we should provide
documentation) that it is from the XMPP room?

Balasankar C
[Non-elite Debian contributor, India]

Balasankar C

Reply to: