Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Re: IRC SIG needs external oversight

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.

council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org

No comments:

Post a Comment