I'll keep it short, not to beat a dead horse: I'm with the people having concerns about general public archiving of all/most IRC channels because it takes semi-public chatter into the indefinitely-archived-and-googleable world, which effectively kills the medium as a watercooler equivalent (or, at any rate, *chills* it, as Ravi Pina brought up previously).
I do, however, recognize, that some channels could effectively work as (and are intended as) completely public spaces and lend themselves to be archived and searchable. I'd request that these channels be: a) opt-in by owner (no default archiving and publishing) b) clearly identifiable as such, both when joining and for the people who have been connected for a long time If we do end up settling on publishing-by-default, then I think an opt-out procedure is vital. I would make use of that procedure for my team channel for instance, which is intended as a semi-public, ephemeral discussion medium. ~F On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Larissa Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Having read the entire discussion, Mike’s proposal seems most up to date to > me and I support it. I definitely would like to have static links and to have > public channels logged, I would also like bots to notify people when they > join a public channel that it is being logged. I think that’s already > happening in some places. > > On a side note, if there are issues with contributor sites and tools not > following privacy guidelines I would suggest a discussion with someone in > community tools. I can help direct people there if needed. > > Larissa > >> On Jan 26, 2015, at 06:10, Mike Hoye <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2015-01-25 3:52 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: >>> Ultimately, if someone is interested in knowing what a team is doing, they >>> should spend however much time they feel is necessary for them to be kept >>> abreast of a team. Whether that be following a team blog, subscribing to a >>> mailing list, watching Air Mo, following a wiki page or perusing logs. >> For what it's worth, I think that we're conflating a bunch of only slightly >> related things here. >> >> As for whether or not IRC conversations _should_ be logged, or those logs be >> posted on a public server? That ship has long sailed, and that seems OK to >> me. That sounds like the way we should be working, and I think that it's >> unreasonable to expect that these things _aren't_ going to get logged. >> >> Far as I can tell the question is: should that process be a formally >> recognized - meaning internally-hosted & org-supported - practice? I think >> that for many IRC channels, if not all, this is a good idea. >> >> Being able to have static links to previous IRC interactions (for Bugzilla, >> future discussion, whatever) so we can say things like "per this IRC >> conversation [link] we've learned this thing", seems like reasonable time >> saver and a low-cost practice that's in line with our values. Some details >> to work out there, like making this explicit per archived channel and >> pruning spam, etc. >> >> This shouldn't be terribly difficult to set up, but I say that because I >> wouldn't be the person actually doing the work. >> >> I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125827 to that >> effect. >> >> >> - mhoye >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
