On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 05:10:07PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ravi Pina <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private? > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > > > I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is > > private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly > > logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging > > is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from > > independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is > > logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile > > environment. > > > > Wait are you trying to tell me that its implied that when you send a packet > using a email protocol its implied it will be logged but when you send a > message via the irc protocol there is an expectancy that it is not?
When you send an email that transaction is logged on every mail relay and then stored on the recipient's server. That is effectively what I am equating to being logged. Further the user can then archive that message indefinitely. This is also why I felt the private status of a mailing list and IRC was not the best comparison. > Mozilla uses inspircd which by default logs all user messages in and out > and on channels: <log method="file" type="* -USERINPUT -USEROUTPUT > -m_spanningtree" level="default" target="ircd.log"> > > As for it creating a hostile environment as others already pointed out a > good amount of channels are already logged and publicly archived so were > talking about just logging and archiving the remaining channels. No hostile > environment has so far existed in fact its been positive. Then why not leave it at those channels and bring up logging to the owners of channels you're particularly interested in vs. making it a global policy? > > > > Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional > > or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less > > willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or > > just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made > > public in this way. > > > > Non-profits and public bodies in many countries are required by law to > record minutes of meetings many have full video and audio recording and yet > many people still attend them. Recording them and making it available > publicly has demonstrably increased access to these meetings. I don't feel that IRC as used this way does not meet any of this criteria. > > > > This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record > > people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as > > there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated > > and planned. > > > > Are you saying people are more deliberate in how they communicate when > others might see what they say? Imagine that.... So people might be more > deliberate in following our participation guidelines too. That is exactly what I am saying, and it reads to me that you want to use logging as a means of enforcing participation guidelines and I don't agree with that means. If you have concerns or issues with members not following participation guidelines perhaps trying to resolve them directly rather than trying to achieve it under cloak of global logging is a better way. > > As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In > > addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track > > the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on > > and off the channel. > > > > Of any irc logging I have seen over many years quit and join messages have > never been part of any publicly archived logs: > http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23developers&s=23%20Jan%202015&e=23%20Jan%202015 > > > > > > I feel like if you strongly want logs for a particular channel there are > > plenty of methods to do this on your own and that having them globally > > captures and then published is not serving the Community at large so much > > as a subset of the Community > > > > Again most of the channels are already logged and archived mostly I think a > few people out of our thousands of contributors would be against this > proposal. > > http://logs.glob.uno/ As I mentioned above then why was this even brought up? If many are already logged then great. If there are other channels you'd like logged then seek the channel's owner and submit it for consideration. If there are ulterior motives then please be more direct. -r _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
