Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:09:27PM +0545, Ties Stuij wrote: This for a public channel that can be tracked by anyone if she/he wishes, so I don't really understand the privacy-concerns. It's the difference between a conversation one might have with someone in a library where I know it's recorded, or don't. I would behave differently, and I like the knowledge that someone has to care enough to see the backlog or save good parts of it: Privacy concerns are valid argument of course. My concern is just that gratuitous (and I think this case is clearly gratuitious, but that point is so meta I've lost interest) logging is something I personally think should be passively discouraged. But I think we've discovered the consensus (the opposite) and so I'm happy to move on. But do debate my conclusion if you think the general gist of my conclusion is wrong in your view. To be clear, I agree with your latest conclusion. Sorry if it seems I now oversimplify the discussion, but in my view the numbers above do seem to reflect people's opinions pretty ok, and framing a conclusion like this at this point is the only way I see to ever reaching an actual decision. Thanks for doing it. I myself underestimated reality a bit. I thought logging would be pretty much a non-issue, and I see now that reaching an actual conclusion through a mailing-list over a topic like this is a pretty hard thing to do. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Indeed. Thanks for persevering though :). /Ties Martin pgp1Hm4veXwBz.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
-1 Mel
Ah, sorry - I wasn't clear. I was agreeing with the statement that nobody
interested in comprehending the logs will not have
(or be granted) a shell account from which they can just run irssi and take
care of the logging themselves, and submitting an alternative proposal
based on that statement to see whether it clarified the arguments that
people had on the topic - I was kinda hoping someone would take it out to a
reductio ad absurdum, but should have just done that myself. (
My actual votes, for what it's worth:
+0 for the publicly document/encourage the private logging process
proposal I put forth earlier. If privacy concerns really outweigh the
overhead to individual loggers this would incur, we should at least make it
so that *everyone* has private logs, at which point the argument against
public logging is much weaker (see reductio ad absurdum, above).
+1 for public logging of #sugar (and #sugar-meeting, which is already
partially logged by meetbot).
-1 for logging without a clear This channel is being logged at this URL
message in the channel topic.
+0 for allowing search engines to crawl logs, with the minor optional
request that email addresses be obfuscated (handy-dandy regexp for finding
emails: \b[a-z0-9._%+...@[a-z0-9.-]+\.[a-z]{2,4}\b)
In general, I value consensus on this topic more than I value my exact
particular views being implemented, so this ends my chiming-in on this topic
as well.
--Mel
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:33:55AM +0545, Ties Stuij wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: If I may summerize: after counting all the votes/opinions here and on irc (but how can we check?), it's mostly for and no real against to having #sugar logged. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Ehhm, ok. You said you disliked logging, without qualifying your dislike. That didn't seem as a very strong against. Well you didn't really ask for a vote; you just said Waddaya say?. People started voting, as they do: +1 Morgan Collet -1 Luke Faraone -0/+1 Jameson Quinn -1 Martin Dengler Note I haven't counted ambiguous votes, though I think some gave implicit approval[1] and some implicit disapproval[3], but I'm not confortable reading into those. If you want a vote, ask for one explicitly (preferably with a concrete-enough proposal), and then count. I put -1, and Luke seemed to put -1. Martin As for Martin he said, if I may quote: I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. That didn't seem like a very strong against opinion either. Uselessness seems a good enough against to me :). To quote myself: Logging -1 (though nobody's asked for a vote[...]) This for a public channel that can be tracked by anyone if she/he wishes, so I don't really understand the privacy-concerns. It's the difference between a conversation one might have with someone in a library where I know it's recorded, or don't. I would behave differently, and I like the knowledge that someone has to care enough to see the backlog or save good parts of it: http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Deployment_meetings/20090127 http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=projects/olpcquotes;a=summary /Ties Martin 1. Votes: http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003830.html http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003832.html http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003836.html 2. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003835.html 3. http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003843.html http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/2009-February/003858.html pgprCqTGhUrqB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:22:56AM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: You cannot be both for and against transparency. You can't be for or against anything that's as ill-defined as transparency. The proposal itself was ill-defined. And the responses appropriately vague. Let's not over-simplify / straw man the discussion into pro-/anti-transparency, because that's a meaningless debate until the terms are defined. As a community, we cannot both demand that leadership discussions happen out in the open, while at the same time refusing to have our own public conversations recorded. No ones refusing, but I don't want it facilitated because it doesn't serve any good purpose. As I've said before: I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. Bernie proposed a reasonable solution that can be implemented without infringing upon anyone's privacy: private logging done by a user on a shell account, as is the norm for most IRC conversations. How is this better than logging automatically, which has the exact same effect, except that everyone has access to the logs, instead of only those who choose to keep the logs? It's better because it doesn't at all have the exact same effect. If I talk to you at the Beer Event at FOSDEM, do you object to it being recorded? ;) --g Martin pgp5A3ec1UnC7.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Looking through public archives, I have found one of my first posts to the first mailing list of the OLPC project: https://www.redhat.com/archives/olpc-software/2006-May/msg4.html So if I found it useful back then when I was a newbie trying to figure out how I could help, it may be of use to other people that may become contributors in the future. Also, the question isn't if people would behave differently if they new the channel is being publicly logged, but if they would behave in a less constructive way. But perhaps the controversy is because some people are already using the channel as a public medium and others still have some feeling of privacy there? Regards, Tomeu On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:54, Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:22:56AM -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote: You cannot be both for and against transparency. You can't be for or against anything that's as ill-defined as transparency. The proposal itself was ill-defined. And the responses appropriately vague. Let's not over-simplify / straw man the discussion into pro-/anti-transparency, because that's a meaningless debate until the terms are defined. As a community, we cannot both demand that leadership discussions happen out in the open, while at the same time refusing to have our own public conversations recorded. No ones refusing, but I don't want it facilitated because it doesn't serve any good purpose. As I've said before: I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. Bernie proposed a reasonable solution that can be implemented without infringing upon anyone's privacy: private logging done by a user on a shell account, as is the norm for most IRC conversations. How is this better than logging automatically, which has the exact same effect, except that everyone has access to the logs, instead of only those who choose to keep the logs? It's better because it doesn't at all have the exact same effect. If I talk to you at the Beer Event at FOSDEM, do you object to it being recorded? ;) --g Martin ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
So... to log or not to log, that is the question ? On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg b...@freudenbergs.de wrote: I for one would appreciate automatic logs, freely accessible, fully indexed. If someone is tallying votes: +1 for logs - Bert - ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 13:11, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: So... to log or not to log, that is the question ? What if everybody that has ever posted in a sugar mailing list and is against publishing logs explained here how if logs were public it would harm her/his ability to keep contributing? I think we should not question their opinions, but as a community evaluate how making logs publics may harm our current contributors. Regards, Tomeu On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Bert Freudenberg b...@freudenbergs.de wrote: I for one would appreciate automatic logs, freely accessible, fully indexed. If someone is tallying votes: +1 for logs - Bert - ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
I for one would appreciate automatic logs, freely accessible, fully indexed. If someone is tallying votes: +1 for logs - Bert - ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 14:19, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 13:11, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: So... to log or not to log, that is the question ? What if everybody that has ever posted in a sugar mailing list and is against publishing logs explained here how if logs were public it would harm her/his ability to keep contributing? s/mailing list/IRC channel/ (others made this mistake in this thread too...) I think we should not question their opinions, but as a community evaluate how making logs publics may harm our current contributors. I've always considered IRC as a public medium, with many lurkers who may or may not be publishing the logs. Right now there are 75 logged on to #sugar, many of which I've never seen participate. They could be representing journalists, future employers, governments, skynet... Making future, or past, logs available publicly would not harm me. When I first got involved in OLPC, things were changing so fast that typically issues (like jhbuild failing) were raised and resolved on IRC and never hit the mailing lists, so I used to read the #olpc and #sugar scrollback on a daily basis. I learned a huge amount this way. I no longer read everything(!) but often have a quick scan to see if there was anything relevant to me. I think there are three options, going forward: #1. Publish the logs officially, hosted on a sugarlabs server and linked from the wiki, for at least #sugar if not #sugar-meeting as well. Explain that no other channels are officially logged in this way, and that people are welcome to use (for example) #sugar-meeting-offtherecord if they want to avoid their logs being published. Or #no-you-cant-have-a-pony. #2. A community member, whether a Sugar Labs member or otherwise, publishes logs at an unofficial location (including people.sugarlabs.org, or a non sugarlabs domain). If nobody else does #1 above or this #2, I'll probably do this at some point, unless #3 below kicks in. #3. Sugar Labs officially bans logging the channels #sugar and/or #sugar-meeting. OLPC never banned logging, but a couple of people asked me not to publish logs when I first spun up xobot. Recently I think it was SJ, but I can't find the reference, who said that the appropriate #olpc* channels should be published as a resource. Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Morgan Collett wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 14:19, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 13:11, David Van Assche dvanass...@gmail.com wrote: So... to log or not to log, that is the question ? What if everybody that has ever posted in a sugar mailing list and is against publishing logs explained here how if logs were public it would harm her/his ability to keep contributing? s/mailing list/IRC channel/ (others made this mistake in this thread too...) I think we should not question their opinions, but as a community evaluate how making logs publics may harm our current contributors. I've always considered IRC as a public medium, with many lurkers who may or may not be publishing the logs. Right now there are 75 logged on to #sugar, many of which I've never seen participate. They could be representing journalists, future employers, governments, skynet... Making future, or past, logs available publicly would not harm me. When I first got involved in OLPC, things were changing so fast that typically issues (like jhbuild failing) were raised and resolved on IRC and never hit the mailing lists, so I used to read the #olpc and #sugar scrollback on a daily basis. I learned a huge amount this way. I no longer read everything(!) but often have a quick scan to see if there was anything relevant to me. I think there are three options, going forward: #1. Publish the logs officially, hosted on a sugarlabs server and linked from the wiki, for at least #sugar if not #sugar-meeting as well. Explain that no other channels are officially logged in this way, and that people are welcome to use (for example) #sugar-meeting-offtherecord if they want to avoid their logs being published. Or #no-you-cant-have-a-pony. #2. A community member, whether a Sugar Labs member or otherwise, publishes logs at an unofficial location (including people.sugarlabs.org, or a non sugarlabs domain). If nobody else does #1 above or this #2, I'll probably do this at some point, unless #3 below kicks in. #3. Sugar Labs officially bans logging the channels #sugar and/or #sugar-meeting. OLPC never banned logging, but a couple of people asked me not to publish logs when I first spun up xobot. Recently I think it was SJ, but I can't find the reference, who said that the appropriate #olpc* channels should be published as a resource. #3 is basically impossible. And if even one person chooses #2, then we may as well save them the work by doing #1 anyway. My last word on the topic. :) --g -- Got an XO that you're not using? Loan it to a needy developer! [[ http://wiki.laptop.org/go/XO_Exchange_Registry ]] ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Martin Dengler mar...@martindengler.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:33:55AM +0545, Ties Stuij wrote: On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: If I may summerize: after counting all the votes/opinions here and on irc (but how can we check?), it's mostly for and no real against to having #sugar logged. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Ehhm, ok. You said you disliked logging, without qualifying your dislike. That didn't seem as a very strong against. Well you didn't really ask for a vote; you just said Waddaya say?. People started voting, as they do: Note I haven't counted ambiguous votes, though I think some gave implicit approval[1] and some implicit disapproval[3], but I'm not confortable reading into those. If you want a vote, ask for one explicitly (preferably with a concrete-enough proposal), and then count. I put -1, and Luke seemed to put -1. Martin As for Martin he said, if I may quote: I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. That didn't seem like a very strong against opinion either. Uselessness seems a good enough against to me :). To quote myself: Well I don't think uselessness is a good argument at all. I see the smiley, but am unsure how to interpret it. Reality is a vast domain. Voting -1 even though you know you can't oversee all possible benefits for everybody involved, thereby denying them those possible benefits just because you can't see them, seems a bit whimsical. This for a public channel that can be tracked by anyone if she/he wishes, so I don't really understand the privacy-concerns. It's the difference between a conversation one might have with someone in a library where I know it's recorded, or don't. I would behave differently, and I like the knowledge that someone has to care enough to see the backlog or save good parts of it: Privacy concerns are valid argument of course. But an open channel is a conversation which probably is recorded. And can quite easily be made accessible by someone who just hasn't thought stuff through. The analogy with real-live conversations doesn't hold that well I think. You can be pretty sure no-one is pointing a microphone in your general direction, transcribes it, and puts it on the web. True, you might behave differently if you know for sure there is public logging, but I at least have in the back of my mind that a public channel always CAN be logged by anybody at all (Not that I care that much. My opinions are my opinions, and they are never that profound.). And as such, I think there's something to say for making it explicit. Also I wonder which topics fall into the category of probably not being discussed when they are logged explicitly but will be discussed when people know they always CAN be logged. Especially in a channel like #sugar, which mostly deals with programming. Also most of your concerns (if I read them correctly) would be addressed by a strategically placed robots.txt file. And the cautious/paranoid will probably err on the side of caution anyway I think. As for voting, let me tally one more time: logging with robot.txt, without something along the lines of password protection: +1 Morgan Collet -1 Luke Faraone +1 Jameson Quinn -1 Martin Dengler +1 ties (if I count) +1 bert +1 bernie (might have plus-onne'ed on a comment though) +1 Sebastian As for the non-formal opinions; they are debatable. They won't hold up in a formal dissection; we might have cross out one or two, but I don't see why we can't take the general wind into consideration. We're discussing a topic here, not formality, and their opinions seemed clear enough, if not otherwise stated. non formal (my interpretation of course): +1 Bernie (if indeed he plus-onned on the comment) +1 David +1 Tomeu +1 Greg (going out on a limb here slightly) -1 Mel so tallying reveals: +10, -3 Again some individual opinions are debatable, but in general to me the outcome seems clear. But do debate my conclusion if you think the general gist of my conclusion is wrong in your view. Sorry if it seems I now oversimplify the discussion, but in my view the numbers above do seem to reflect people's opinions pretty ok, and framing a conclusion like this at this point is the only way I see to ever reaching an actual decision. I myself underestimated reality a bit. I thought logging would be pretty much a non-issue, and I see now that reaching an actual conclusion through a mailing-list over a topic like this is a pretty hard thing to do. Will be interesting to see how this plays out. /Ties ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Martin Dengler wrote: Contention: nobody interested in comprehending the logs will not have (or be granted) a shell account from which they can just run irssi and take care of the logging themselves. In case someone is missing a suitable shell account, I've installed irssi and screen on our shell server. Sunjammer account holders: any package you need installed, just ask your friendly bofh. We want people to feel at home there. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
You can always set up your own eggdrop bot with logs2html which creates a webpage and updates every couple minutes... the results look very good: www.nubae.com/logs I could copy the eggdrop logs file and other elements... and then all u have to do is change the channel name/s David On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: Martin Dengler wrote: Contention: nobody interested in comprehending the logs will not have (or be granted) a shell account from which they can just run irssi and take care of the logging themselves. In case someone is missing a suitable shell account, I've installed irssi and screen on our shell server. Sunjammer account holders: any package you need installed, just ask your friendly bofh. We want people to feel at home there. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
If I may summerize: after counting all the votes/opinions here and on irc (but how can we check?), it's mostly for and no real against to having #sugar logged. And perhaps the path of least resistance is for David to add an extra line to his irc-logger config file. If so, David, I ask you politely, and as a friend without proper facilities of his own, to accept this great task of firing up your preferred text editor. My thanks will be eternal, or until the LHC will do its destructive damage. /Ties On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Bernie Innocenti ber...@codewiz.org wrote: David Van Assche wrote: You can always set up your own eggdrop bot with logs2html which creates a webpage and updates every couple minutes... the results look very good: www.nubae.com/logs I could copy the eggdrop logs file and other elements... and then all u have to do is change the channel name/s Err, actually I thought _you_ wanted to do it :-) Sorry, I'm not sufficiently motivated to setup and maintain an IRC logging service myself, but I'm glad to facilitate it with our infrastructure. -- // Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/ \X/ Sugar Labs - http://www.sugarlabs.org/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: If I may summerize: after counting all the votes/opinions here and on irc (but how can we check?), it's mostly for and no real against to having #sugar logged. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Martin and I both were against logging, citing its chilling effects among other things. Jameson requested that logging be noindex'd, otherwise he'd be against it. (while not blocker against) Bernie proposed a reasonable solution that can be implemented without infringing upon anyone's privacy: private logging done by a user on a shell account, as is the norm for most IRC conversations. -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc wrote: On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: If I may summerize: after counting all the votes/opinions here and on irc (but how can we check?), it's mostly for and no real against to having #sugar logged. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Ehhm, ok. You said you disliked logging, without qualifying your dislike. That didn't seem as a very strong against. As for Martin he said, if I may quote: I don't think the audience might understand the volume, verbosity, and context-mining involved in browsing such a log. That didn't seem like a very strong against opinion either. Not something that warranted further discussion. On irc people mostly offered setting up an irc channel, and seemed to be ok with it. Tomeu said it might be nice so as to indicate Sugar is an open organisation, as a token if you will. There was some talk about the merit of 'private kitchentables' for projects in general, but it seemed like it was poised in the spirit of general debate, not applying to logging the #sugar mailing list in particular. So people do have different opinions on various levels of openness, but no-one seemed to feel that strongly about not logging, and when I tallied up the votes (the hard ones and the ones given in passing), the ayes seemed to outstrip the nays about two-and-a-half to one. Again, I for one do like the openness, indexability by search engines, ability for everybody to read the backlog, and the ability to link to past discussions for reference. This for a public channel that can be tracked by anyone if she/he wishes, so I don't really understand the privacy-concerns. But if you, and others DO feel very strong about it, and consensus can't be reached, then we default to current practices I guess. I don't feel that strong about the whole deal. But let me propose a compromise, which was mentioned before in passing: Logging yes, but not indexable by the major search engines through a robots.txt file. Otherwise I'll ask our friendly bofh. /Ties ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
[IAEP] irc logs
I would really appreciate some logging of the #sugar channel, as my connection to the #sugar irc channel is killed quite often, my timezone doesn't converge very well with a number of you, and it's of course a practical service to have in general. As I understand we don't have backlogs atm because they were frowned upon by certain elements in the OLPC era. But since Sugar has since cut the umbilical cord, and Sugarlabs is now – almost – a transpant, open and happy organisation, in which lambs can dart around in happy ignorance, perhaps it is time to symbolically open the windows by allowing this feature. Waddaya say? /Ties ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:10, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: I would really appreciate some logging of the #sugar channel, as my connection to the #sugar irc channel is killed quite often, my timezone doesn't converge very well with a number of you, and it's of course a practical service to have in general. As I understand we don't have backlogs atm because they were frowned upon by certain elements in the OLPC era. But since Sugar has since cut the umbilical cord, and Sugarlabs is now – almost – a transpant, open and happy organisation, in which lambs can dart around in happy ignorance, perhaps it is time to symbolically open the windows by allowing this feature. +1. Unfortunately my xobot bot doesn't do logging properly, and gets kicked off the net occasionally by my unreliable connectivity... I'll look into a better bot, but don't let that stop anyone else from getting there first :) Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Morgan, Could you run xbot from one of our other servers? If so please file bug against infrastructure. david On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Morgan Collett morgan.coll...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:10, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: I would really appreciate some logging of the #sugar channel, as my connection to the #sugar irc channel is killed quite often, my timezone doesn't converge very well with a number of you, and it's of course a practical service to have in general. As I understand we don't have backlogs atm because they were frowned upon by certain elements in the OLPC era. But since Sugar has since cut the umbilical cord, and Sugarlabs is now – almost – a transpant, open and happy organisation, in which lambs can dart around in happy ignorance, perhaps it is time to symbolically open the windows by allowing this feature. +1. Unfortunately my xobot bot doesn't do logging properly, and gets kicked off the net occasionally by my unreliable connectivity... I'll look into a better bot, but don't let that stop anyone else from getting there first :) Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Would it be reasonable to ask for logs to be only half-heartedly public? ie, hiding behind a captcha/login choice or at least a non-permissive robots.txt? With that qualification, I would vote for logs +1, without that I am -0. On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 5:51 AM, David Farning dfarn...@sugarlabs.orgwrote: Morgan, Could you run xbot from one of our other servers? If so please file bug against infrastructure. david On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Morgan Collett morgan.coll...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:10, Ties Stuij cjst...@gmail.com wrote: I would really appreciate some logging of the #sugar channel, as my connection to the #sugar irc channel is killed quite often, my timezone doesn't converge very well with a number of you, and it's of course a practical service to have in general. As I understand we don't have backlogs atm because they were frowned upon by certain elements in the OLPC era. But since Sugar has since cut the umbilical cord, and Sugarlabs is now – almost – a transpant, open and happy organisation, in which lambs can dart around in happy ignorance, perhaps it is time to symbolically open the windows by allowing this feature. +1. Unfortunately my xobot bot doesn't do logging properly, and gets kicked off the net occasionally by my unreliable connectivity... I'll look into a better bot, but don't let that stop anyone else from getting there first :) Regards Morgan ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Morgan Collett morgan.coll...@gmail.comwrote: Unfortunately my xobot bot doesn't do logging properly, and gets kicked off the net occasionally by my unreliable connectivity... I'll look into a better bot, but don't let that stop anyone else from getting there first :) Personally I dislike public logging, but if there is consensus I can set up a supybot on teach.laptop.org that logs into http://teach.laptop.org/~ffm/logs/ -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote: Would it be reasonable to ask for logs to be only half-heartedly public? ie, hiding behind a captcha/login choice or at least a non-permissive robots.txt? With that qualification, I would vote for logs +1, without that I am -0. Would you mind them being indexed by a on-site search engine, but not by Google et al.? -- Luke Faraone http://luke.faraone.cc ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Contention: nobody interested in comprehending the logs will not have (or be granted) a shell account from which they can just run irssi and take care of the logging themselves. +1 to this. I submit that people will generally be interested in two things: old meeting notes (going back to before they began participating, perhaps), and logs for channels they're interested in starting from the time they were participating. So I counterpropose that: (1) Meetbot (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Meetbot - should make a parallel SL wiki page) is continued to be used for autologging of meetings, both planned and unplanned (it doesn't seem to have a robots.txt, though - should there be one?) (2) Instructions on how anyone can set up private logging (including how you get a shell account, if that's the case) be posted on the wiki (alongside the list of IRC channels, as on http://sugarlabs.org/go/IRC#IRC_Chat or a separate page) That should enable people to have access to the subset of info that they care about, plus resolve logging/privacy concerns. --Mel ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
I think Ties's original request was actually about the #sugar list, not #sugar-meeting, which is by-and-large logged routinely. -walter On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Mel Chua m...@melchua.com wrote: Contention: nobody interested in comprehending the logs will not have (or be granted) a shell account from which they can just run irssi and take care of the logging themselves. +1 to this. I submit that people will generally be interested in two things: old meeting notes (going back to before they began participating, perhaps), and logs for channels they're interested in starting from the time they were participating. So I counterpropose that: (1) Meetbot (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Meetbot - should make a parallel SL wiki page) is continued to be used for autologging of meetings, both planned and unplanned (it doesn't seem to have a robots.txt, though - should there be one?) (2) Instructions on how anyone can set up private logging (including how you get a shell account, if that's the case) be posted on the wiki (alongside the list of IRC channels, as on http://sugarlabs.org/go/IRC#IRC_Chat or a separate page) That should enable people to have access to the subset of info that they care about, plus resolve logging/privacy concerns. --Mel ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
2009/2/3 Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote: Would it be reasonable to ask for logs to be only half-heartedly public? ie, hiding behind a captcha/login choice or at least a non-permissive robots.txt? With that qualification, I would vote for logs +1, without that I am -0. Would you mind them being indexed by a on-site search engine, but not by Google et al.? +1 -- Sebastian Silva Laboratorios FuenteLibre http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
Re: [IAEP] irc logs
Well, I have a logbot running on #ltsp and logging to http://www.nubae.com/logs It would be no skin off my back to have it logging another channel too. Its just one line in the eggdrop config file... David Van Assche On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Sebastian Silva sebast...@fuentelibre.org wrote: 2009/2/3 Luke Faraone l...@faraone.cc On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com wrote: Would it be reasonable to ask for logs to be only half-heartedly public? ie, hiding behind a captcha/login choice or at least a non-permissive robots.txt? With that qualification, I would vote for logs +1, without that I am -0. Would you mind them being indexed by a on-site search engine, but not by Google et al.? +1 -- Sebastian Silva Laboratorios FuenteLibre http://blog.sebastiansilva.com/ ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep ___ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
