First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Hello all,

I'm writing to update you on some exciting changes in Wikimedia's IRC situation.

Firstly, Ryan Postlethwaite organised a meeting on IRC this evening to
discuss the problems we've been having of late. It went very well: I
had a chance to explain the situation and clear up any potential
misconceptions, and users pointed out that James and I are not
fantastic at *appearing* active as lots of stuff happens in the dark.
You can read a log of the meeting at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Surgeries/July
2008/Log>, but I'll summarise my explanation of the situation.

Basically, freenode realised in January that our paperwork for our
group contact status is badly out of date and in some cases simply
missing. So I was told that I could only set wikimedia/ cloaks (which
I have been doing in the usual batches since I learnt I could set
these), and just this week we learnt that James can set wikipedia/
cloaks. While we continue to wait for freenode to redo our paperwork
(no idea of an ETA, we poke the right person every few weeks as a
reminder though), we are now setting wikimedia/ and wikipedia/ cloaks.
Other cloaks will remain in the system and will get set as soon as we
are able to.

There was much other discussion about the role of the contacts but it
would be better to read the log if you want to know about it: I
wouldn't do the discussion justice by summarising it here.

Secondly, the huge backlog of wikipedia/ cloaks have now been set
where possible (some users seem to have dropped their nick
registration while the requests have been waiting). Woohoo! This was
because we finally learnt this week that James can still set cloaks in
this namespace.

Thirdly, it was decided we should hold such meetings more often. And
as noted above, people asked for more transparency with contact
actions. So I present a raft of new pages on meta:

<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Log> -- log of
cloaks and access changes
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Surgeries> --
surgery planning and logs
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Noticeboard> --
status updates rather like this e-mail.

I hope you'll join in with my excitement at all this.

Sean Whitton
for the IRC Group Contacts

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Luna-4
Thanks again to all who attended, especially Ryan, Sean, and James.
It's excellent to see this being implemented so quickly.

One question I neglected to ask, earlier: is there anything we as
individual users can do to be more helpful, with this whole situation?

-Luna

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

mike.lifeguard
In reply to this post by Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
Are bot cloaks being done now that you can do Wikipedia and Wikimedia
cloaks?
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Whitton [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: July 27, 2008 6:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this
evening,cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Hello all,

I'm writing to update you on some exciting changes in Wikimedia's IRC
situation.

Firstly, Ryan Postlethwaite organised a meeting on IRC this evening to
discuss the problems we've been having of late. It went very well: I
had a chance to explain the situation and clear up any potential
misconceptions, and users pointed out that James and I are not
fantastic at *appearing* active as lots of stuff happens in the dark.
You can read a log of the meeting at
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Surgeries/July
2008/Log>, but I'll summarise my explanation of the situation.

Basically, freenode realised in January that our paperwork for our
group contact status is badly out of date and in some cases simply
missing. So I was told that I could only set wikimedia/ cloaks (which
I have been doing in the usual batches since I learnt I could set
these), and just this week we learnt that James can set wikipedia/
cloaks. While we continue to wait for freenode to redo our paperwork
(no idea of an ETA, we poke the right person every few weeks as a
reminder though), we are now setting wikimedia/ and wikipedia/ cloaks.
Other cloaks will remain in the system and will get set as soon as we
are able to.

There was much other discussion about the role of the contacts but it
would be better to read the log if you want to know about it: I
wouldn't do the discussion justice by summarising it here.

Secondly, the huge backlog of wikipedia/ cloaks have now been set
where possible (some users seem to have dropped their nick
registration while the requests have been waiting). Woohoo! This was
because we finally learnt this week that James can still set cloaks in
this namespace.

Thirdly, it was decided we should hold such meetings more often. And
as noted above, people asked for more transparency with contact
actions. So I present a raft of new pages on meta:

<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Log> -- log of
cloaks and access changes
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Surgeries> --
surgery planning and logs
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Group_Contacts/Noticeboard> --
status updates rather like this e-mail.

I hope you'll join in with my excitement at all this.

Sean Whitton
for the IRC Group Contacts




_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Angela-5
In reply to this post by Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Sean Whitton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> While we continue to wait for freenode to redo our paperwork
> (no idea of an ETA, we poke the right person every few weeks as a
> reminder though), we are now setting wikimedia/ and wikipedia/ cloaks.
> Other cloaks will remain in the system and will get set as soon as we
> are able to.

"no idea of an ETA" doesn't sound too good. Wikia has been waiting 6
months just for freenode to recognise a new group contact. Has there
been any discussion about moving to a new network?

Angela

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Joe Szilagyi
Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?

- Joe
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Jon-146
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
>
> - Joe
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Bandwidth cost money.  Lets allow Freenode PDPC to be gracious enough to
donate it.  For that I am thankful.

- --
Best,
Jon

[User:NonvocalScream]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiNWEsACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXLyACfQ1dSUik/8ycBukvDw4lwCLG2
PrkAnjWNb39lIcU10+njqGURXUoIvR1C
=2de+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Dan Rosenthal
Yes, but setting up IRC channels on many networks that are more accessible
than Freenode, (and have better policies to control trolling and spamming,)
is easy and free, and even if we were to set up IRC on our own domain, it
takes a miniscule amount of bandwidth.

-Dan

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Jon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> > Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
> > simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
> >
> > - Joe
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> Bandwidth cost money.  Lets allow Freenode PDPC to be gracious enough to
> donate it.  For that I am thankful.
>
> - --
> Best,
> Jon
>
> [User:NonvocalScream]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkiNWEsACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXLyACfQ1dSUik/8ycBukvDw4lwCLG2
> PrkAnjWNb39lIcU10+njqGURXUoIvR1C
> =2de+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held thisevening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

mike.lifeguard
I think the real issue is that we'd need someone to manage it, and our
sysadmins have been explicit that they do not enjoy managing the channels we
already have (RC feeds) and do not want to manage more. Whether or not
someone else from the community could do it, I don't know.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Rosenthal [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: July 28, 2008 3:52 AM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held
thisevening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Yes, but setting up IRC channels on many networks that are more accessible
than Freenode, (and have better policies to control trolling and spamming,)
is easy and free, and even if we were to set up IRC on our own domain, it
takes a miniscule amount of bandwidth.

-Dan

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Jon <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
> > Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
> > simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
> >
> > - Joe
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> Bandwidth cost money.  Lets allow Freenode PDPC to be gracious enough to
> donate it.  For that I am thankful.
>
> - --
> Best,
> Jon
>
> [User:NonvocalScream]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkiNWEsACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXLyACfQ1dSUik/8ycBukvDw4lwCLG2
> PrkAnjWNb39lIcU10+njqGURXUoIvR1C
> =2de+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
Dan Rosenthal



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Waerth
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
Yes they control spamming by blocking whole countries out. Many networks
simply do not allow you on with a Thai IP address. This might also be
the case for other countries. Also people need to register their nicks
again. Which might be taken on other networks already. Moving over after
all of these years is not something to consider lightly.

Waerth

http://fi.ndit.at

> Yes, but setting up IRC channels on many networks that are more accessible
> than Freenode, (and have better policies to control trolling and spamming,)
> is easy and free, and even if we were to set up IRC on our own domain, it
> takes a miniscule amount of bandwidth.
>
> -Dan
>
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Jon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>>    
>>> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
>>> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
>>>
>>> - Joe
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>      
>> Bandwidth cost money.  Lets allow Freenode PDPC to be gracious enough to
>> donate it.  For that I am thankful.
>>
>> - --
>> Best,
>> Jon
>>
>> [User:NonvocalScream]
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAkiNWEsACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXLyACfQ1dSUik/8ycBukvDw4lwCLG2
>> PrkAnjWNb39lIcU10+njqGURXUoIvR1C
>> =2de+
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>    
>
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Luna-4
On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 22:14, Luna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> One question I neglected to ask, earlier: is there anything we as
> individual users can do to be more helpful, with this whole situation?

Not really, no: there is very little James and I can do ourselves
except poke freenode every few weeks. The thing I would ask is that
information like that which was given out at the meeting is spread to
stop people ending up with different views about what can and can't be
done. That's why I set up the pages on meta, to try and clear up these
misconceptions.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 00:48, mike.lifeguard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are bot cloaks being done now that you can do Wikipedia and Wikimedia
> cloaks?

Yes, I intend to do a run of these this morning.

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:28, Angela <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "no idea of an ETA" doesn't sound too good. Wikia has been waiting 6
> months just for freenode to recognise a new group contact. Has there
> been any discussion about moving to a new network?

The discussions were had, but the issue is that actually, we get a
heck of a lot out of freenode. The network is well run in terms of
routing and sysadminship (as freenode staff I have nothing to do with
that area but we have a very skilled team who do) and freenode also
allow us special exemptions: Wikimedians can request the ability to
join more than twenty channels, we have bots that are allowed
exemption from flood protection, and the toolserver has a higher
connection limit.

It is important to remember that the only thing freenode have got
wrong is their group contact system, but in my experience what
generally happens is suddenly, everything will happen. That's what
happened when NickServ and ChanServ were recently changed over to
(much better) software, and I predict this will end up happening with
the groups system too. Eventually.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

geni
In reply to this post by Joe Szilagyi
2008/7/28 Joe Szilagyi <[hidden email]>:
> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
>
> - Joe

Plausible deniability. As long as the channels stay on freenode
nothing that happens there can be blamed on the foundation.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Delphine Ménard
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 14:32, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2008/7/28 Joe Szilagyi <[hidden email]>:
>> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
>> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
>>
>> - Joe
>
> Plausible deniability. As long as the channels stay on freenode
> nothing that happens there can be blamed on the foundation.

And also, I suppose:
As long as the wikimedia-related channels stay on 3rd party servers
our human resources are not scattered trying to fix irc while the site
is down.


Delphine
--
~notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. For Wikimedia
related correspondence, use my dmenard(at)wikimedia(point)org address.
Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Jon-146
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Jon <[hidden email]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
>> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?

I made a suggestion that we change networks or run our own during the meeting.

The bandwidth requirements would be infinitesimal and it could could
be placed where Wikimedia's traffic is the least costly if bandwidth
were really an issue.

There would be a couple of interesting possible benefits:

* Long term login integration with SUL: Have Wikimedia SUL logins
function as IRC logins.
** Automatic permissions, we could overlay the existing wiki
permissions onto IRC lowering the amount of special IRC management
required. Adminship on enwp would permit you ops in #wikipedia-en
** Possibilities of extending IP blocks on projects automatically to IRC. ;)
** Other integration: Things like chanserv telling you that you have
new talk page messages.. etc.
* More consistent handling of private data:  Even if you have a
freenode cloak anyone can get your IP if you use freenode by doing a
/whois on you at the moment you connect. This could be resolved by
obscuring the IP.
* Improved reliability: In the decade or so that I've used freenode it
has *always* been the least reliable IRC network that I use. I still
see netsplits multiple times per week on good weeks, and multiple
times per day on bad weeks.. It's not so bad as to be debilitating, as
seanw put it, but it's obnoxious.  Wikimedia's datacenter
interconnectivity is better than this, and the more limited scope of a
Wikimedia IRC would make scaling somewhat easier.

I see three downsides:
* IRC goes down when the Wikimedia network is down.  At a minimum the
tech folks will probably need to maintain a presence on another IRC
network.  I expect that the tech folks are far more likely to have
other channels of interest on other networks than general Wikimedia
contributors..  All modern irc clients support multiple networks
easily.

* It's another possible distraction for the tech team. More software
to maintain. ... although not much of one since we already run a
limited IRC server for the RC feeds.

* It's another service that Wikimedia would be offering, carrying its
own possible overheads though I expect that these would be small, easy
to avoid, and mostly fold into the overheads of the projects.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Effe iets anders
Another problem I see, but not sure how important it is, is that this
would make Wikimedia possibly responsible (legally speaking) for the
communication through IRC etc, which might not be wanted. Nowadays we
can just point to freenode, which handles it all, and will be taking
action when required.

Besides that, I don't think that the extra software maintaining will
cost developers the most time, but that the nagging users will. Users
that come for small issues to the developers because sean and/or james
are for a while away, and (disaster!) the cloaks can't be set for a
while. now people turn to Freenode, which is perfectly able to handle
it, doing nothing else practically, either by fixing either by telling
them to have patience. When Wikimedia developers have technical
control over the channels and nicks etc, this would mean mainly an
additional workload on that behalf, would be my expectation.

with kind regards,

Lodewijk

2008/7/28 Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Jon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Joe Szilagyi wrote:
>>> Is there legitimate reason it would not be more beneficial and easier to
>>> simply set up something like irc.wikimedia.org and host it in-house?
>
> I made a suggestion that we change networks or run our own during the meeting.
>
> The bandwidth requirements would be infinitesimal and it could could
> be placed where Wikimedia's traffic is the least costly if bandwidth
> were really an issue.
>
> There would be a couple of interesting possible benefits:
>
> * Long term login integration with SUL: Have Wikimedia SUL logins
> function as IRC logins.
> ** Automatic permissions, we could overlay the existing wiki
> permissions onto IRC lowering the amount of special IRC management
> required. Adminship on enwp would permit you ops in #wikipedia-en
> ** Possibilities of extending IP blocks on projects automatically to IRC. ;)
> ** Other integration: Things like chanserv telling you that you have
> new talk page messages.. etc.
> * More consistent handling of private data:  Even if you have a
> freenode cloak anyone can get your IP if you use freenode by doing a
> /whois on you at the moment you connect. This could be resolved by
> obscuring the IP.
> * Improved reliability: In the decade or so that I've used freenode it
> has *always* been the least reliable IRC network that I use. I still
> see netsplits multiple times per week on good weeks, and multiple
> times per day on bad weeks.. It's not so bad as to be debilitating, as
> seanw put it, but it's obnoxious.  Wikimedia's datacenter
> interconnectivity is better than this, and the more limited scope of a
> Wikimedia IRC would make scaling somewhat easier.
>
> I see three downsides:
> * IRC goes down when the Wikimedia network is down.  At a minimum the
> tech folks will probably need to maintain a presence on another IRC
> network.  I expect that the tech folks are far more likely to have
> other channels of interest on other networks than general Wikimedia
> contributors..  All modern irc clients support multiple networks
> easily.
>
> * It's another possible distraction for the tech team. More software
> to maintain. ... although not much of one since we already run a
> limited IRC server for the RC feeds.
>
> * It's another service that Wikimedia would be offering, carrying its
> own possible overheads though I expect that these would be small, easy
> to avoid, and mostly fold into the overheads of the projects.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Al Tally
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
I can imagine the anti-IRC users on the wiki wouldn't like the idea of an
IRC run by Wikimedia.

--
Al Tally
(User:Majorly)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Gregory Maxwell
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Al Tally <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I can imagine the anti-IRC users on the wiki wouldn't like the idea of an
> IRC run by Wikimedia.

Too late for that I'm afraid! irc.wikimedia.org   ;)

Though perhaps such a change would be an opportunity to address some
of the complaints they have about IRC.  (like, perhaps, running
automatic public logs of all the public channels or whatever the
community decides on..)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

Sean Whitton (Xyrael)
In reply to this post by Effe iets anders
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 19:34, effe iets anders
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Another problem I see, but not sure how important it is, is that this
> would make Wikimedia possibly responsible (legally speaking) for the
> communication through IRC etc, which might not be wanted. Nowadays we
> can just point to freenode, which handles it all, and will be taking
> action when required.

This is the number one reason, at the end of the day, why we wouldn't
want to do it. IRC is not something WMF really wants on its list of
legal concerns - the wikis are bad enough ;)

> Besides that, I don't think that the extra software maintaining will
> cost developers the most time, but that the nagging users will. Users
> that come for small issues to the developers because sean and/or james
> are for a while away, and (disaster!) the cloaks can't be set for a
> while. now people turn to Freenode, which is perfectly able to handle
> it, doing nothing else practically, either by fixing either by telling
> them to have patience. When Wikimedia developers have technical
> control over the channels and nicks etc, this would mean mainly an
> additional workload on that behalf, would be my expectation.

Indeed, freenode staff are very good (although I'm biased of course)
at dealing with people's issues. We've reset hundreds of passwords,
we've helped with hundreds of ChanServ problems. It seems silly to
abandon that service.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: First IRC Group Contacts 'surgery' held this evening, cloak backlog (almost) cleared (yay)

David Gerard-2
2008/7/28 Sean Whitton <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 19:34, effe iets anders
> <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Another problem I see, but not sure how important it is, is that this
>> would make Wikimedia possibly responsible (legally speaking) for the
>> communication through IRC etc, which might not be wanted. Nowadays we
>> can just point to freenode, which handles it all, and will be taking
>> action when required.

> This is the number one reason, at the end of the day, why we wouldn't
> want to do it. IRC is not something WMF really wants on its list of
> legal concerns - the wikis are bad enough ;)
[...]
> Indeed, freenode staff are very good (although I'm biased of course)
> at dealing with people's issues. We've reset hundreds of passwords,
> we've helped with hundreds of ChanServ problems. It seems silly to
> abandon that service.


Yuh. Running an IRC network is useful insofar as it directly advances
the mission statement. That is to say, not very. The Foundation has
made donations to Freenode before in recognition of the benefit it
gets from IRC, but Freenode are much better at running an IRC network
than the Foundation ever really wants to bother becoming. Outsourcing
can be a very good idea at times.

I mean, it's possible it's worth the effort of doing it in-house -
Greg thinks it wouldn't be overwhelming - but I still can't say I'm
personally convinced.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l