Re: IRC SIG needs external oversight

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=4AWm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 09/20/2016 10:19 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
>
>
> On 09/19/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:32:22 +0200
>> Brian Exelbierd <bex@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new
>>> energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a
>>> weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after
>>> action reports."
>>>
>>> I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting,
>>> as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should
>>> be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.
>>
>> We recently switched out irc bot over to using ChanTracker:
>> https://github.com/ncoevoet/ChanTracker
>> it keeps track of mode changes, but I don't think it has any easy
>> reporting capability and things can be annotated when it's used.
>>
>> I guess 'after action' reviews could be helpful, but do we want to call
>> out people again in public? say there was a 15minute quiet for a user,
>> do we want to go over that and note the specific user in public logs
>> and such? I'm good with learning how better to handle things, but wall
>> of shame I am not sure about.
>
> As implemented elsewhere, it should be a private page maybe on the wiki
> with access allowed only for current ops. So it wouldn't be a public
> wall of shame.
>
> ~m
>

Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I also meant that the wiki page / "place
of reporting" would be a private page only visible to channel operators
/ SIG members and other relevant people. This has worked well so far for
the ArchWomen community as far as I'm aware.

--
Cheers,
Justin W. Flory
jflory7@gmail.com