Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[13:05:10] <Pici> Although my -ot support policy item is first on the list, I propose defering it until some of the more pressing issues are attended do.
[13:05:13] <Pici> s/do/to/
[13:05:24] <Pici> [link]
[13:05:33] <topyli> ok Pici, good idea
[13:05:33] <nhandler> o/
[13:05:39] <bilalakhtar> Is this the IRCC meeting?
[13:05:44] <nhandler> Yes bilalakhtar
[13:05:44] <topyli> bilalakhtar: yes
[13:06:06] <topyli> [TOPIC] Failure to document blanket ban policy
[13:06:14] <topyli> ikonia: you around?
[13:06:25] <topyli> let's group this and the next one
[13:06:28] <ikonia> I am
[13:06:30] <ikonia> sounds reasonable
[13:06:33] <ikonia> they are the same thing
[13:06:44] <ikonia> I just wanted to be clear there are two actions here
[13:06:49] <Pici> Indeed.
[13:07:28] <ikonia> topyli: do you want me to just talk, or do you want to start ?
[13:07:40] <Pici> ikonia: Do you want to summarize for those present who may not be familiar with the issue?
[13:07:44] <ikonia> certainly
[13:08:28] <ikonia> There is an "appeals" process for users who are banned/miss-treated from the Ubuntu IRC name space, I have raised the issue that there needs to be the reverse of this for long term trouble users. This was agreed should happen, it has not been documented, or implemented on the requested trouble users
[13:09:28] <ikonia> the reverse should include a blanket ban from the ubuntu IRC council controlled ubuntu name sapce
[13:09:31] <ikonia> space
[13:09:39] <ikonia> (sorry should have been clear about that, hence blanket ban policy)
[13:09:49] <topyli> this is true, we are in talks with staff but we are/i am slow
[13:09:50] <nhandler> ikonia: We are currently working with freenode staff to find a way to effectively implement and enforce this
[13:10:11] <ikonia> nhandler: I thought it was as simple as putting a ban in all the channels controlled ?
[13:10:14] <Seeker`> ikonia: how long ago did you raise the issue?
[13:10:16] <elkybirthday> can we not do it manually until then?
[13:10:22] <Pici> ikonia: We control a lot of channels.
[13:10:26] <nhandler> ikonia: Not really, since IP addresses change (and they use proxies)
[13:10:28] <ikonia> Seeker`: approx 6 months ago but I can't be exact
[13:10:47] <topyli> it is an old issue yes
[13:10:56] <ikonia> nhandler: the main ones in the examples I raised do not change
[13:11:14] <tsimpson> it's also difficult to enforce if we do it manually, we can't watch each join in all the channels, so it's possible they'd still slip in
[13:11:28] <ikonia> ok - so lets move from the implementation for a while, where is the documetned process and critera that was discussed about
[13:11:33] <Seeker`> so either we implement a complete ban or none at all?
[13:11:37] <Seeker`> thats stupid
[13:11:42] <elkybirthday> I'd like to point out that in the mean time, ikonia is getting targetted for harrassment from one of the individuals, in a manner that * is* disrupting various channels
[13:11:49] <nhandler> ikonia: That will partially depend on what freenode staff end up deciding wrt this issue
[13:12:05] <Pici> Would it be amenable to allow operators to manually place the bans if the target joined a channel, but before they acted in a manner that would get them banned in normal circumstances.
[13:12:07] <ikonia> nhandler: why are freenode staff controlling the critera for the process ?
[13:12:10] <Pici> Like 'ban on sight'?
[13:12:21] <elkybirthday> the individual is feeling enabled by the council's lack of action or response or anything public really
[13:12:28] <ikonia> Pici: totally
[13:12:30] <ikonia> Pici: the point is to document and recognise that user is not allowed in the ubuntu name space
[13:12:38] <ikonia> Pici: how we act to that is seconady
[13:12:41] <ikonia> secondary
[13:12:48] <nhandler> ikonia: Because it is ugly setting bans in all #ubuntu-* channels and enforcing them, and we are trying to find a better way to handle that
[13:13:04] <ikonia> nhandler: ok, that doesn't change the processof applying for the ban, or the critera
[13:13:11] <elkybirthday> nhandler, can we not deal with the social side in the interim at least?
[13:13:14] <ikonia> why has that not been documented ?
[13:13:28] <Pici> Perhaps we should action and document that while we find a way to work with freenode.
[13:13:40] <ikonia> Pici: I thought that action had already been taken
[13:13:53] <ikonia> the reverse of the appeals process, and the critera must be met before applying
[13:13:55] <Pici> ikonia: I don't see it documented.
[13:13:59] <ikonia> it's not
[13:14:04] <ikonia> it was an action the council agreed to do
[13:14:16] <topyli> we agreed on it, but we never documented it
[13:14:22] <Seeker`> why not?
[13:14:28] <ikonia> the documenting was part of the agreement
[13:14:43] <topyli> yes
[13:15:05] <Seeker`> This is starting to verge on the next topic too
[13:15:09] <elkybirthday> yeah
[13:15:25] * nhandler notes that there is nothing stopping people not on the council from helping with some of these tasks
[13:15:32] <ikonia> nhandler: actually there is
[13:15:46] <ikonia> nhandler: I offered to do it, but was told it was not acceptable as the council had to set the critera
[13:15:54] <Pici> Hm.
[13:16:02] <elkybirthday> sure there is. we can't decree non grata status on someone on behalf of the council. that's what's being requested. we cannot do that. only ircc can do that
[13:16:04] <nhandler> ikonia: No. Anyone in the community is capable of proposing a draft for the council to approve
[13:16:23] <tsimpson> as long as the council approves it, I see no issue
[13:16:28] <ikonia> nhandler: that was a different discussion I had then
[13:16:33] <ikonia> nhandler: I was told it was not appropriate for me to do it as the council had to set the policy, and I can't do that
[13:16:34] <Pici> But it is our fault for not correcting that information that you were provided with.
[13:16:43] <Seeker`> ultimately, someone on the council will have to do something with any documents generated, and that seems to be the part that is failing
[13:17:08] <nhandler> ikonia: Yeah, we'll have to ultimately ACK the content of such a document, but who actually writes it up is irrelevant imo
[13:17:23] <Pici> I'm not sure when that happened, but we have had a few documents drafted by our operators in the past that we're working to bring into policy.
[13:17:23] <elkybirthday> I rather suspect that ikonia basically wrote the policy in his emails
[13:18:33] <topyli> it could be transferred to wiki and we could accept it rather easily
[13:18:41] <Seeker`> do it then?
[13:18:42] <Pici> Would you like me to do that?
[13:18:52] <ikonia> elkybirthday: it was spelt out quite clear in the emails
[13:19:05] <elkybirthday> ikonia, im aware of what your emails are like :)
[13:19:21] <nhandler> Pici: If you are up for it, I doubt there will be any objections
[13:19:24] <topyli> Pici: yes, with ikonia's help
[13:19:36] <ikonia> just tell me what you need
[13:20:00] <ikonia> I've pushed this multiple times on email and either got no response or being told "it's been worked on"
[13:20:03] <Pici> [action] Pici to document ikonia's namespace ban proposal.
[13:20:13] <ikonia> the correct reponse is "can you help with $X" if you need help/input
[13:20:18] <Pici> Er, or does the chair need to do that?
[13:20:27] <topyli> [ACTION] Pici to document ikonia's namespace ban proposal.
[13:20:32] <Pici> topyli: thanjs.
[13:20:40] <topyli> apparently
[13:20:45] <elkybirthday> Pici, yeah, otherwise anyone can set actions
[13:20:56] <Pici> ikonia: Let me read over the email you sent and I'll let you know what else I need.
[13:21:01] <topyli> [TOPIC] Failure to respond / follow up on pending actions
[13:21:02] <ikonia> Pici: just shout/mail
[13:21:27] <topyli> is this the same issue or another one? :)
[13:21:27] <Pici> What do you want us to say about this?
[13:21:28] <ikonia> do you want an overview again ?
[13:21:43] <Pici> I don't think we need an overview, unless someone else thinks we do.
[13:21:49] <Seeker`> isn't this one kinda obvious?
[13:21:50] <nhandler> I think the big issue is that we are simply not delegating enough
[13:22:06] <nhandler> We are trying to handle too many things at once, and we are only 5 people
[13:22:08] <ikonia> I personally have raised multiple issues with the IRC council, I'm also aware of other operators doing the same, the lack of response or time to implimenting these requests is beyond crazy
[13:22:10] <Seeker`> nhandler: It actually just seems like the council isn't do anything they say they will
[13:22:14] <ikonia> nhandler: what is the blocker ?
[13:22:47] <ikonia> nhandler: responding to an email to at least acknowledge it's been read isn't a massive task, unless you ar getting 100+ requests per week
[13:22:59] <Pici> I think we're all to blame.
[13:23:08] <Pici> Er, I mean the IRCC members.
[13:23:11] <elkybirthday> does the ircc need to be expanded?
[13:23:37] <Seeker`> just how much work does the ircc have each week that 5 people can't get it done?
[13:23:38] <nhandler> elkybirthday: Well, part of the issue is that due to real life issues, we only had a partial council for a period of time
[13:23:47] <topyli> i don't think the council needs to be bigger, we've been a bit unfortunate lately
[13:24:02] <ikonia> topyli: define latley for perspective please
[13:24:14] <topyli> a few months or so
[13:24:26] <topyli> everybody's back now though
[13:24:28] <elkybirthday> nhandler, that should have been said before now so it could be fixed
[13:24:28] <ikonia> k
[13:24:31] <ikonia> ok
[13:24:47] <Pici> I could come up with excuses, but I'd rather just have us get back on the horse and get to resolving everyone's problems.
[13:24:54] <ikonia> Pici: agreed
[13:24:56] <topyli> aye
[13:25:01] <Seeker`> surely if that is **that** much work to do and someone isn't going to be around for a while, replace them?
[13:25:28] <ikonia> Pici: people have things to deal with, no question, but an email to explain why it's not happenening or just a response to say, we got it, thanks, is all that is needed
[13:26:06] <nhandler> What we should probably do is go through what remaining actions we have and try and give a few of them to members of the OP team.
[13:26:22] <Pici> If its appropriate of course.
[13:26:26] <topyli> indeed, we should at least reply always. we (at least i) should also review our task list more often
[13:26:57] <ikonia> council, that last issue was more a heads up/ shake up, nothing needs to happen beyond as pici said, getting back on the hourse
[13:27:01] <ikonia> horse
[13:27:26] <topyli> ikonia: the overviews?
[13:27:39] <Pici> ikonia: We do have our team reports, but as I discussed at our IRC session at UDS, we will be working to provide more detail in them.
[13:27:42] <ikonia> topyli: the failure to respond / follow up on pending items
[13:27:46] <Pici> Oh
[13:28:02] <ikonia> I'll summarise the next two points quikely as they are the same
[13:28:02] <Pici> Sorry, I thought you were talking about the next items.
[13:28:09] <topyli> ok
[13:28:21] <topyli> let me open it
[13:28:30] <elkybirthday> one thing i tried to get set up whilst I was n the ircc is a request tracker. because we're not email people and we already work on an issue-based workflow with the bantracker
[13:28:32] <topyli> [topic] high level council overviews
[13:28:38] <ikonia> I hear a massive amount of talk about great things happening, yet based on the points I raised earlier, I see none of it. I don't see the council doing anything activly for the community or the ops team beyond creating red tape
[13:29:11] <Pici> ikonia: We do have our team reports, but as I discussed at our IRC session at UDS, we will be working to provide more detail in them.
[13:29:12] <ikonia> if you are doing something that benifits either of the groups mentioned, I'd like to hear about it
[13:29:17] <topyli> elkybirthday: i would love to have bugs on launchpad
[13:29:30] <Seeker`> the IRCC team reports aren't linked from the IRCC wiki page, afaics
[13:29:40] <Pici> Seeker`: They should be...
[13:29:41] <ikonia> Pici: up until now, I see nothing, so going forward reports are great, but I want to know what's happened in the year this council has been together
[13:29:44] <ikonia> I see notyhing
[13:29:45] <nhandler> Seeker`: They are linked from
[13:29:45] <tsimpson> Seeker`: only from the meeting agenda page
[13:29:46] <ikonia> I see nothing
[13:30:04] <elkybirthday> topyli, im not sure LP bugs is a suitible place, to be honest. the IS team in canonical don't use it, they have an rt instance
[13:30:11] <nhandler> We have done stuff. For instance, is the most recent thing we have been up to (currently a draft)
[13:30:28] <ikonia> nhandler: a draft document, anything else ?
[13:30:30] <Pici> I've brought this up a few times, but we're going to be making more of an effort to document our day-to-day stuff.
[13:30:37] <nhandler> ikonia: It is waiting on CC approval
[13:30:41] <ikonia> nhandler: anything else/
[13:30:45] <Seeker`> where can the team reports be found?
[13:30:59] <Seeker`> oh, there
[13:31:02] <nhandler> Seeker`:
[13:31:28] <ikonia> I'm just looking for one thing the council has done in a year
[13:31:31] <ikonia> it shouldn't be that hard
[13:31:45] <ikonia> or whats the big achievement, something you feel is a real benifit
[13:32:06] <Seeker`> see the lnik elky posted in -ops a while ago? about docs being placed "on display" in a basement with no lights, no stairs, in a locked filing cabinate, stuck in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"?
[13:32:16] <nhandler> ikonia: We created a Charter
[13:32:29] <ikonia> nhandler: poor
[13:32:47] <ikonia> ok - I think I'm happy with that topic, I think I get a feel for what's been achieved in a year
[13:32:55] <nhandler> ikonia: Not really. We have a policy for bots to be in the channel. We've recruited new ops
[13:33:03] <Seeker`> so, in a year you have created a charter. How about something to make operators lives easier?
[13:33:04] <ikonia> nhandler: stuff that happened beefore
[13:33:14] <ikonia> nhandler: but without as much lip service and more common sense
[13:33:24] <topyli> i'm not keen on shaking up things just to be able to say we changed stuff
[13:33:28] <ikonia> but I get the drift of what's been achieved I think, so I'm happy to move on
[13:33:38] <Seeker`> btw, recruiting more ops isn't an achievement, it is something that should be actively going on all the time
[13:33:50] <Seeker`> as people leave / aren't around as much, they should be replaced
[13:33:55] <ikonia> Seeker`: yes, but there is now a joke of a process to go through
[13:33:58] <elkybirthday> Seeker`, agreed
[13:34:08] <Pici> The process was new.
[13:34:21] <Pici> And we've learned our lessons from it.
[13:34:21] <topyli> what makes it a joke?
[13:34:28] <ikonia> yes, and pointless lip service
[13:34:31] <ikonia> but that's just my opinion
[13:34:36] <ikonia> topyli: we'll discuss that at another meeting, lets get through the issues
[13:34:37] <elkybirthday> topyli, is rww on the team yet?
[13:35:01] <topyli> elkybirthday: nope
[13:35:29] <elkybirthday> there's an example of the joke
[13:35:46] <elkybirthday> you have willing people who you're failing to convert
[13:35:49] <Seeker`> where is the operator recruitment process linked from on the wiki?
[13:35:55] <topyli> rww's access is not what we're here for right now
[13:36:02] <ikonia> lets move on
[13:36:05] <ikonia> get throughthe issues
[13:36:16] <topyli> good idea
[13:36:20] <Seeker`> where is the operator recruitment process linked from on the wiki?
[13:36:29] <ikonia> Seeker`: it's there I'll dig it out
[13:36:35] <ikonia> it's also in a factoid
[13:36:44] <topyli> [topic] Discussion about approved/non-approved shell hosts access to Ubuntu channels (revisit)
[13:37:15] <topyli> this is important. ikonia, still have steam to summarize this one? :)
[13:37:34] <ikonia> there are a number of shell providers with no active or usable usage policy, known users have been a problem on these shell hosts, I have raised an issue a long time ago in an email to the council saying which shell hosts needed to be banned in the same way as using the floodbots
[13:37:54] <ikonia> this is a long standing issue with the council that I have raised and chaied
[13:38:28] <ikonia> I have taken the action myself in #ubuntu #kubuntu #ubuntu-offtopic where the problem was most visible
[13:38:31] <ikonia> I did this due to lack of reponse from the council (approx 6 months)
[13:38:39] <ikonia> if the council wish me to undo this, they need to say so
[13:39:56] <topyli> there are shells with a pronounced policy of no policy on their users, i support your action
[13:39:58] <Pici> I think this is just a matter of documenting and sactioning the bans.
[13:40:29] <ikonia> I would agree, and I'm happy to put that up on the wiki as known blocked shells
[13:40:33] <ikonia> I've not done this again due to lack of feedback on my actions from the council
[13:40:35] <nhandler> Getting anything changed in the floodbots would require talking to ljl
[13:40:52] <ikonia> agreed, however as I stated in the mail, they are just forwaded to -ops until it is agreed
[13:40:57] <nhandler> Are the details of the current handling of webchat users on the wiki anywhere?
[13:41:13] <ikonia> I have been explaining to the efffected users manually in -ops to complain to their shell providers to get a usage policy
[13:41:22] <Pici> nhandler: I have an action item from UDS to work with LjL and rww to document the floodbots.
[13:41:29] <ikonia> nhandler: as it's recently changed I doubt it
[13:42:33] <nhandler> Well, having a page explaining "Why can't I get into #ubuntu" might be useful (and ties into both of those items)
[13:42:48] <nhandler> It could talk about shells like this, the web gateway, being banned, using a proxy, etc
[13:42:49] <ikonia> agreed, but I'm not writing that until I get a response from the council supporting the process
[13:42:51] <topyli> Pici: so you can merge this in your existing action item?
[13:43:13] <Pici> topyli: Which part?
[13:43:30] <topyli> floodbots and shells
[13:43:32] <nhandler> ikonia: Supporting the process of blocking an entire shell? Or for these particular shells?
[13:43:42] <Pici> As much as I'd like to get everything handled, I don't want to be the only one taking items.
[13:43:58] <ikonia> nhandler: more a case of if a shell host has a usage process that is not managed or not compatible with ubuntu's usage, then we block them
[13:44:28] <ikonia> the ones I raised where an example and have been updated as we now have an excellent relationship with shellium
[13:44:35] <Pici> I think a technical solution should be secondary to the documenting/sanctioning.
[13:44:59] <ikonia> Pici: agreed but 6 months with no response, I acted
[13:45:01] <nhandler> ikonia: I am fine with that. In general, I don't like unnecessarily broad bans like this, but if we determine the provider to be uncooperative and the shells are being abused, we have little choice (other than blocking all the individual users or exempting the good users)
[13:45:02] <topyli> the technical solution is there, simple bans
[13:45:16] <Pici> I mean the floodbots.
[13:45:29] <ikonia> Pici: ah yes,
[13:46:01] <ikonia> council, if I get a formal mail agreeing to my actions, I'll document it
[13:47:45] <topyli> ikonia: i'll send mail and we'll fix it
[13:47:45] <Pici> I have no problems with that.
[13:47:54] <ikonia> I'll be happy to document it
[13:47:54] * Pici [actions] topyli
[13:48:29] <topyli> [action] topyli to send formal agreement to ikonia's shell fix
[13:49:12] <topyli> Seeker`: i'm skipping your item unless you reformulate it so that we understand
[13:49:21] <Seeker`> There is an ever increasing dependance on the IRCC to decide something before an operator action can be taken - decisions that can take 6-12 months to be made. There seem to be increasing levels of red tape to get anything done. I made a request several months ago that all operators be given +o, and was told that this was dependant on the definition of a "Core Op", which still hasn't been meaningfully described and enacted. For some reason, ther
[13:50:17] <topyli> is this any different from ikonia's earlier items?
[13:50:21] <Seeker`> no
[13:50:25] <Seeker`> well
[13:50:26] <topyli> ok
[13:50:26] <Seeker`> ish
[13:50:33] <topyli> moving on
[13:50:35] <Seeker`> the specific thing I want to talk about now is the core ops
[13:51:09] <Seeker`> why do we need "core ops" and "normal ops"?
[13:51:52] <Seeker`> and why has it taken so long to define them
[13:52:10] <topyli> i suggest we move that a bit further down, as we really need to get the ban list item now before people have to go
[13:52:21] <nhandler> Seeker`: There was an email sent out about that asking for suggestions on how to define them. There were very few suggestions
[13:52:32] <Seeker`> nhandler: that doesn't answer why we need them
[13:52:39] <Pici> And I suspect that Jussi will want to be present for the core-ops discussion.
[13:52:55] <Seeker`> Pici: well, its been on the agenda for 6 days
[13:52:57] <Pici> As he and I both have strong feelings about it. (differing opinions I might add)
[13:53:16] <elkybirthday> Seeker`, his flights have been booked longer
[13:53:23] <topyli> i see nothing about core ops on the agenda
[13:53:53] <ikonia> defer it if jussi is a core factor hee
[13:53:58] <ikonia> here
[13:54:02] <Pici> topyli: Well my re-org item was actually supposed to be about that...
[13:54:04] <Pici> Sort of.
[13:54:08] <topyli> ah ok
[13:54:35] <topyli> however, let's get to the ban list issue
[13:54:57] <topyli> [topic] Clearing the ban list
[13:55:11] <nhandler> I've been thinking about this for a while, just never added it to the agenda
[13:55:27] <Pici> I propose going through the bans on the bantracker and removing all of them that do not have a comment.
[13:55:51] <Pici> And removing all bans that don't have matches in the bantracker.
[13:55:52] <nhandler> If we clear the ban lists, we will get some trolls (previously banned) who return. But would could easily re-ban them. However, this would also allow us to remove the hundreds of probably stale/old bans that are just sitting there
[13:56:11] <elkybirthday> oh finally
[13:56:13] <ikonia> Pici: I like pici's approach
[13:56:26] <topyli> agreed, there is a lot of dead weight
[13:56:30] <ikonia> give the ops 1 week to documentimportant bans
[13:56:36] <ikonia> then anything that's not important kill
[13:56:48] <ikonia> sorry my keyboard batteries appear to be dying
[13:57:09] <Pici> ikonia: Right, we wouldn't do it without notice.
[13:57:58] <ikonia> Pici: surprising but I'm backing it
[13:58:00] <nhandler> Is there an easy way to get a list of of such bans Pici ?
[13:58:25] <topyli> so an email to the mailing list, a week, clean?
[13:58:37] <Pici> nhandler: Well I can pull down the bans database and query it for all bans that don't have a comment.
[13:58:47] <Pici> nhandler: So, yes, it is rather easy to do.
[13:59:55] <Pici> Does anyone have any objections?
[14:00:07] <nhandler> Nope.
[14:00:08] <topyli> not me
[14:00:28] <ikonia> surprisingly not
[14:00:41] <topyli> ikonia: :)
[14:00:52] <Pici> Who wants to write it up?
[14:00:55] <Pici> The email?
[14:01:27] <topyli> i can do it, but i'll have to consult you over irc first :)
[14:01:27] <nhandler> Pici: If you can get me a list of bans that would be affected, I can write up the email
[14:01:29] <Pici> Or does this warrant having a vote/
[14:01:39] <topyli> oh nhandler is probably more competent
[14:01:45] <ikonia> don't list the bans
[14:01:52] <ikonia> just tell everyone a week to document important bans
[14:01:56] <ikonia> then clear down the rest
[14:02:07] <Pici> I'll get a number of bans at least.
[14:02:18] <Pici> the count, rather.
[14:02:34] <nhandler> ikonia: The bans are all public already. I won't include them in the email, but I want to have it available for OPs who aren't sure which of their bans will be affected
[14:03:04] <ikonia> thats why we have BT
[14:03:11] <ikonia> each op log in, and sort your bans out
[14:03:15] <ikonia> don't need lists sending around
[14:03:36] <ikonia> better still remove the ones you know aren't important
[14:03:39] <nhandler> ikonia: But the BT doesn't have an easy way to find bans without comments
[14:03:58] <ikonia> no, but operators do, you search on your own bans and read them
[14:04:28] <ikonia> send it out if you want though, just a suggestion
[14:05:01] <nhandler> ikonia: I wasn't going to send the list of bans with the email, I just wanted to have it to give to individual OPs who ask me (as I'm sure some will) afterwards
[14:05:28] <ikonia> that shouldn't be a requirement of sending out the email though
[14:05:47] <nhandler> ikonia: It isn't
[14:05:52] <ikonia> great,
[14:06:30] <topyli> so mail. nhandler, you'll send it?
[14:06:36] <nhandler> topyli: Yeah
[14:07:11] <topyli> [action] nhandler to send mail about ban list clearing
[14:07:45] <topyli> we should be closing. any other items will have to be deferred
[14:07:56] <topyli> anything really really quick?
[14:08:13] <Seeker`> I want a meeting scheduled before the next IRCC meeting to discuss the core op issue
[14:08:30] <Seeker`> I'm pretty sure it was said in the UDS IRCC discussion that it could be brought up today
[14:08:32] <ikonia> +1
[14:08:41] <ikonia> this core ops stuff has gone on way too long
[14:08:51] <topyli> please try and schedule one then, we probably can't do it now
[14:09:14] <nhandler> The next IRC Meeting is in 2 weeks on the 13th otherwise
[14:09:22] <topyli> [endmeeting]
[14:09:24] <topyli> gah
[14:09:25] <Seeker`> a week today?
[14:09:28] <topyli> #endmeeting
Meeting ended.