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

Re: having public irc logs?

On 07/04/2017 16:21, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> (this question was on debian-vote by purpose, and was directed to DPL,
> I'll drop -vote on the next email)
>> (Replies redirected to debian-project, since this has nothing to do
>> with the DPL election anymore.)
> sigh, I agree
> (I would have used -devel to have a public discussion, this wasn't
> the case, but meh, it is nice to discuss such things anyway)
>> I guestion the usefulness of IRC logs for that kind of thing. The log
>> shows that, say, a package was discussed three hours ago. Has the
>> situation changed? It might have, but without anyone mentioning it on
>> IRC, and therefor in the log. The kinds of things that are discussed
>> on IRC tend be quickly changing. Logs are not useful for those. In my
>> opinion and experience.
> I had many times written something just some minutes after somebody else.
> You might question it, I might agree with you, but in my life I have a lot
> of use-cases of this being useful
> (e.g. my uploads not being accepted, a quick look on -ftp channel logs
> can show signs of dak sadness).
> But anyway, I don't see any added value of discussing what I find useful
> and what you find useful :)
>> This does not match my observations of reality. People seem happy to
>> behave quite badly using their own names in public fora as it is.
>> Making IRC channels public is unlikely to have much effect on
>> behaviour.
> completely correct, this was an answer to some "hey we can't public
> logs because people are using bad words here".
>> If it did, nobody would be an ass on Facebook, Google+, or Twitter
>> unless they've taken care to hide their identity well. Yet people are
>> posting, using their real names, sexist and racist slurs, even death
>> threats. Not to mention newspapers and TV.
> sigh, true, unfortunately nobody seems responsible anymore for
> his behaviour.
>> If there's a problem with how people behave on IRC, that should be
>> addressed directly.
> sure, but this is not something I have to discuss, I don't have such
> problem, I just think logs are useful :)
>>> You want to protect privacy but you know privacy doesn't exist on
>>> public places.
>> I disgree strongly.
>> If I sit on a park bench with a friend and we discuss something, we
>> have an expectation of privacy. If you record our conversation and
>> play it on the radio, you've violated our privacy.
> true
>>> (it would be nice if some removed developer going away after some
>>> bad flame war over Debian would publish *all* the logs just for fun)
>>> How will you protect the privacy then?
>> You're suggesting that someone publish non-public discussions? Becuase
>> it would be fun? Seriously?
> I didn't suggest that, but privacy online is seriously something that
> *doesn't* exist, and people not understanding that are simply wrong.
> you can have some false idea of privacy online, the website gets
> hacked, or a bug shows logs on the server, or somebody else hacks
> your pc.
> In a park the damage you can do is limited, online is really worse the situation
> (I remember some leaks of some websites for adults, leaking real email addresses
> and real passwords)
> so, saying "somebody violating my privacy is wrong", when "somebody" can be "null" or
> "really difficult to track because vpn/tor", doesn't protect you much more.
>>> People should be responsible for what they say, regardless where
>>> they say. We are not kids anymore.
>> I'll be sending a handyman to install a webcam and microphone in your
>> bathroom and bedroom. I've also engaged a private investigator firm to
>> follow you and record all discussions you have with friends. The ones
>> that mention or refer to Debian will be posted to
>> meetings-archive.debian.net. A team of volunteers will transcribe them
>> and post them to identi.ca. After all, ýou need to be responsible for
>> anything you say, at any time, in any place, in any context.
> well, bathroom and bedroom are more private than irc I would say, but
> sometimes even the context has to be considered when saying something
>> More constructively... if you have a point that specific disucssions
>> about, say, release management should be made more public, then make a
>> specific suggestion about that, with justificiations why it's a good
>> idea. Saying that all Debian IRC channels should be logged publically
>> is too broad to be acceptable to a large number of people.
> And finally the point is there.
> If you look closely to my first email I never said "all", and specially
> I don't care about many channels (even -devel or -mentors might be useless
> when not connected to the internet).
> I even provided a list, -release, -ftp, -buildd.
> so, the question still stands.
> Dear DPL candidate, how do you feel about having *some* irc channels of public
> interest being available for offline users?

I feel bad about that. As explained elsewhere, it is not the spirit of
usage of IRC, at least in Debian. But ultimately, I think it is a project
decision if (for example) we want to make a #debian-recorded channel but
I would not support it, personally.

There are simple technical measures that you could personally put in place
to follow some channels.


Reply to: