Re: irc.debian.org
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 07:36:51PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > Aside from the fact that OFTC are not currently sending fundraising
> > > messages to their users, I can see no appreciable differences in their
> > > constitution.
> >
> > OPN doesn't have a constitution, though.
>
> <shrug> OPN has a series of documents describing what it is trying to
> do, they're on the appropriate website.
True. Saying something like legalese doesn't make it the statements any
better. There is value in clear definitions such as those commonly found in
constitutions, though.
> OFTC was founded at the end of 2001 by a group of experienced members
> of the Open Source and Free Software communities ...
>
> Interesting, but I can't find any people who meet that description on
> the list of staff - mostly a bunch of people whose "experience" is
> merely being OPN staff at some point or another, plus several people
> who created some god-awful messes on OPN that it took me far too much
> time to clean up [No, I'm not going to give names. They should know
> who they are. And I don't appreciate having to clean up somebody
> else's mess]. Certainly not the sort of people I'd expect from reading
> that paragraph.
So, doing stuff for OPN doesn't count as experience? I'd expect them to
flame your ass off the planet at this point.
Also, I've recently heard a complaint that you wasted people's time on OPN
by creating some problem, too. This came from DanielS >:)
> We are pleased to announce that Software in the Public Interest (SPI)
> has agreed to be our parent organisation. This will mean that OFTC
> will no longer be controllable by any single individual, and that the
> network's basic foundation, the constitution, can be fully enforced.
>
> This is just bullshitting; SPI provides no such guarantees. Power is
> held by those with power, as always. They may or may not decide to
> obey the constitution as it suits them.
SPI can declare them no longer a project of their own if they fail to work
according to SPI's principles. I can't imagine many things more damaging for
the reputation of a community organization than to be kicked out by the slow
giant that SPI is. YMMV.
> > > In my opinion, DalNet or WebChat would be better suited to hosting Debian
> > > than OFTC; they have established complaints procedures and have
> > > demonstrated in the past that they are capable of running large networks
> > > in a reasonably stable manner. They are maintained by people with years of
> > > experience in these matters; WebChat runs the ConferenceRoom server (the
> > > only commercial ircd) which, I'm not afraid to say, is hugely better than
> > > the current free versions.
> >
> > This is an open discussion, so this is definitely an option to consider if
> > they really are as good as you suggest. Do you have a contact at any of
> > these, where we could ask if we can point irc.d.o there?
>
> I don't have any contacts with their admin teams; I've only used them,
> and studied how they work while trying to figure out how to design
> stuff for OPN. These two stood out amoung the top 10 or so networks
> (by usercount) as providing pretty reliable service and procedures for
> dealing with complaints (things which many of the top 10 do not do).
Well, this is about (in)action, so unless you've got something less than
observations, these aren't options...
> > > That said, OPN does not host *any* "official" Debian stuff. #debian is
> > > run by the network itself; several other channels are run and
> > > frequented by developers, but so what? The Debian project itself does
> > > not run any channels there.
> >
> > No, irc.debian.org points to OPN and #debian on irc.debian.org is the
> > officially recommended Debian support channel. OPN has always been
> > acknowledged as our endorsed IRC network and is listed at our partners
> > web page because of this.
> >
> > Debian doesn't run any channels -- for crying out loud, that is why OPN is
> > there!
>
> None of that is in conflict with what I said. OPN is endorsed as a
> network, but the project does not have any actual resources or
> channels hosted there.
Your meaning of "not having channels hosted there" completely evades me.
I consider #debian a Debian channel that is hosted there. Isn't that so?
(It is an OPN channel in the basis, of course, but also Debian's because of
the deal to have irc.d.o == irc.op.n.)
> > > So, what should criteria should we have for such DNS names?
> >
> > The one that we've had so far.
>
> I see no documented criteria.
Which doesn't mean that criteria doesn't exist, just that it's not
documented.
> > > Should we reserve *.debian.org for official Debian services?
> >
> > It is already reserved.
>
> Except that it isn't. irc.debian.org exists, which is not an official
> Debian service at all - it's an independant service that Debian
> endorses.
Your definition of "official Debian" is wrong. We use "official Debian sth"
for a wide array of independent services that we endorse.
> It's quite possible that this CNAME should not exist at all.
That would certainly be an option, were it not for the fact this name has
propagated to many packages' default configurations, users' configurations
and after all, users' minds.
> > > Should we add dozens of aliases for everybody that runs a Debian service?
> > > [How about {planet,portal}.debian.org CNAME debianplanet.org?]
> > > Should we pick some services based on technical or political merits?
> > > Should we pick services based on the number of Debian members which can be
> > > found there? [This may include your local pub. It's about as relevant to
> > > the project as any other services.]
> >
> > These questions have very little to do with the explicit issue at hand.
>
> The wooshing sound is the point flying over your head.
>
> The project does not appear to have any firm criteria as to what the
> debian.org domain should be used for. The above are a few suggestions
> to get people thinking along the right lines.
The criteria is pretty firm, I haven't seen a new foo.debian.org assigned to
a new services, well, ever since I joined. We obviously don't add aliases
for all Debian services. The aliases we have now are usually whatever the
founders felt was necessary. They picked services based on what the users
wanted, what we could implement, and of course what was necessary for Debian
to operate nicely.
Anyway, if you want to define this criteria in a written document, by all
means, go ahead. But lack of such a thing should not prevent applying sound
judgement to the issue of whether we should have irc.d.o point to a network
that needlessly solicits donations to pay salary to its admin.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: