Registering #polyhack

[nicholasf]

Hey all,

So today we had a slight issue with a visitor and it's prompted the question about whether we need ops and how we handle channel rudeness.

It's been a background conversation for a while.

The good thing is that we have a strong agreement about how we want to treat each other. That's really awesome. And if someone steps out of line then patiently explaining it to them and giving them a chance to adjust to it might help onboard them with it.

But that won't cover every situation as the community grows so I'd like to register #polyhack officially with Freenode and want to discuss the best way to handle bad behaviour in channel, so we can come to a group decision about an ops policy, etc..

If anyone is rude then please /ignore them and encourage others to do so via private msg, or create a ticket here, as a first step.

Ideas are welcome about how to handle this, of course. I'd really like #polyhack not to become a place where the status of an op interferes with how the channel functions, so it's a topic to think about.

Cheers,
Nicholas

[kvanbere]

dibs admin.

[markmandel]

Not saying this is the answer, but something I was considering.

Could always have silent ops as a "just in case". Basically it's an agreement between ops that they only actually turn on ops and use the power in "extreme cases" (whatever that may be), but otherwise the channel exists as if it doesn't have ops at all, as it is now.

[nicholasf]

Hey. Yes, I’ve had the same thing in mind. So ops are unobtrusive.

Then I think, possibly, we might find a democratic process to share ops between a small group of people that might even rotate. We’d come up with a process of nominating someone who understands community values and we’d map out what to do if someone steps out of line.

On 7 Oct 2014, at 3:56 pm, Mark Mandel notifications@github.com wrote:

Not saying this is the answer, but something I was considering.

Could always have silent ops as a "just in case". Basically it's an agreement between ops that they only actually turn on ops and use the power in "extreme cases" (whatever that may be), but otherwise the channel exists as if it doesn't have ops at all, as it is now.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[SomeoneWeird]

I was actually thinking if we should give everyone who is in the channel at the moment, ops. If anybody comes in and is rogue then nobody has to ping a small number of people who actually have the power to do anything (that's if we make the list public, too, what happens when it's not?)

[markmandel]

I don't know how practically we'd rotate ops, but I like the idea of a democratic process for nominating and voting in (?) ops, that can be an ongoing process as the channel evolves.

Of course, that does also mean we need to have a channel owner 😬 which is a step away from our happy anarchistic irc commune.

[SomeoneWeird]

We can have multiple people have "founder" status, and then a bunch of other ops too. I'm not sure about rotating ops, but having a process between current ops about voting new ones in would be great

[nicholasf]

Cool cool. Let’s keep chatting and get a variety of ideas on the table. This will probably be a long conversation.

Adam, I personally am concerned that ops can be seen as a way to elevate some people over others. I like a really flat structure.

We have a slight deviation in polyhack github though with the owners repo.. It’s a small group that is just there for admin purposes. I think something similar would work well for ops - a quiet group that is mostly visible and is just there for ‘admin’. Finding a fair process for selecting that group (or rotating it) would be great.

On 7 Oct 2014, at 4:03 pm, Adam Brady notifications@github.com wrote:

t

[SomeoneWeird]

@nicholasf Sure, but i'm suggesting that /everyone/ have ops, that way people are still on the same level, and the bad guys can be dealt with.

Of course, it's just a suggestion.

[nicholasf]

@SomeoneWeird - yes, I see the democratic aspect of what you are pointing out.

On 7 Oct 2014, at 4:08 pm, Adam Brady notifications@github.com wrote:

@nicholasf Sure, but i'm suggesting that /everyone/ have ops, that way people are still on the same level, and the bad guys can be dealt with.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[MrTiggr]

just as a thought - many IRC ChanBots have "Vote to Ban/Vote to Kick" style
scripts which can tally up a vote taken of PM's and take OP actions such as
devoicing, banning and klining .. perhaps what we need is a good channel
bot that can do the heavy lifting for us.

I have an IRC bounce server which could happily host such a bot if we
thought it might help.

T

---

                          Wayne   Lee-Archer #{TIGGR}
                    Solutions Architect, Analyst/Programmer

OM MANI PADE ME HUM

                                 "courage is contagious"

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Nicholas Faiz notifications@github.com
wrote:

@SomeoneWeird - yes, I see the democratic aspect of what you are pointing
out.

On 7 Oct 2014, at 4:08 pm, Adam Brady notifications@github.com wrote:

@nicholasf Sure, but i'm suggesting that /everyone/ have ops, that way
people are still on the same level, and the bad guys can be dealt with.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10 (comment).

[mwotton]

I think there isn't a real problem. The stuff that happened was dealt with
with a minimum of unpleasantness - I think if ops were involved it would
have been worse.
On 07/10/2014 11:06 am, "Nicholas Faiz" notifications@github.com wrote:

Hey all,

So today we had a slight issue with a visitor and it's prompted the
question about whether we need ops and how we handle channel rudeness.

It's been a background conversation for a while.

The good thing is that we have a strong agreement about how we want to
treat each other. That's really awesome. And if someone steps out of line
then patiently explaining it to them and giving them a chance to adjust to
it might help onboard them with it.

But that won't cover every situation as the community growd so I'd like to
register #polyhack officially with Freenode and want to discuss the best
way to handle bad behaviour in channel, so we can come to a group decision
about an ops policy, etc..

If anyone is rude then please ignore them and encourage others to do also
via private msg, or create a ticket here, as a first step.

Ideas are welcome about how to handle this, of course. I'd really
#polyhack not to become a place where the status of an op interferes with
how the channel functions, so it's a topic to think about.

Cheers,
Nicholas

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10.

[nicholasf]

I'm going to keep pursuing this in #freenode and will update about my progress.

[damncabbage]

@mwotton: Our current visitor will get bored and eventually move on, yes, but it'd be awfully nice to not have to tell newcomers to the channel to just /ignore the guy posting slurs and interesting pictures.

[SomeoneWeird]

I'm in process of talking with somebody about this.. scenario

[nicholasf]

@SomeoneWeird great. So am I. I began a conversation with jayne in #freenode a couple of months ago. Hopefully we can get the channel registered.

[mipearson]

@markmandel re silent ops, over lunch a month ago I joked that there should be a secret cabal of ops.

I kind of like the idea.

[damncabbage]

[nicholasf]

Hey guys.

So we are now an official channel! It's registered under my name. Thanks to SomeoneWeird for his efforts here.

I've kicked and banned the abusive visitor.

Let's chat about how we want the channel to run. Until we reach a group decision we'll cope with any problems on ad hoc basis and grow to fit a pattern that works.

Hopefully that's acceptable to everyone?

[mipearson]

Yep. As I stated over lunch, I'd just be happy for nicf have ops and leave it at that. Instances where it needs to be used are rare enough that any kind of system or schedule is an unnecessary distraction.

[nicholasf]

My initial opinion is ...

• there should be more than one person who can help the channel, but not very many
• ops should be invisible unless they need to be used to prevent a visitor upsetting the community
• ops should be servants of the community. There isn't any further status attached to them.
• ops should never be used against a member of the channel. I think this would be the circumstance where it might be abused. If this ever had to happen there would need to be a conversation about it.

The above is just my opinion. Please let me know yours.

I want to have an approach in place by Monday and encourage everyone to air their thoughts about it by then. We can discuss it over the weekend.

As a sidepoint ...

There are further issues about how #Polyhack might grow, and we need people to step up and organise events or items. That's a culture issue and probably separate. Perhaps there is a coordinator role that might rotate every 6 months or so, and might be city specific.

[SomeoneWeird]

I don't think we need to have specific event coordinators, people can just step up and organise something if they feel the need for it.

[markmandel]

I agree on all of @nicholasf's points regarding ops.

I also agree with @mipearson that is should be called a cabal of ops 😀

As per events, that seems to have grown nicely organically. Not sure if that needs to change.

[mipearson]

I was about to argue, "this doesn't have to be this serious". And then I realised that I've taken the position of "eh, whatever". So, non-committal agreement!

[SomeoneWeird]

So I see three possible ways of going about this.

1: We do what @mipearson suggested, we have a number of people who have ops (and is kept secret?)
2: We do what I suggested, we give ops out to a bunch of active members who are always around and can monitor the situation.
3: We do what @MrTiggr suggested, and nobody gets ops. We make a bot that automates kicks/bans people after a number of votes etc.

[markmandel]

Re: No. 1 above, let's not keep the list of ops secret. Let's just have them be non-ops in chan. It doesn't need to be a secret cabal.

(I don't think that was what you were saying, but I it was worth making a point of)

[mipearson]

But we can wear robes and have secret meetings :(

On 8 Oct 2014, at 3:08 pm, Mark Mandel notifications@github.com wrote:

Re: No. 1 above, let's not keep the list of ops secret. Let's just have them be non-ops in chan. It doesn't need to be a secret cabal.

(I don't think that was what you were saying, but I it was worth making a point of)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[markmandel]

@mipearson I think that is mandatory.

[stones]

What about tying the ops users in with having to organise events?

[SomeoneWeird]

@stones I'm not convinced that will work, unfortunately.

[stones]

@SomeoneWeird what would it take to convince you? I can be VERY persuasive
.... :)

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Adam Brady notifications@github.com wrote:

@stones https://github.com/stones I'm not convinced that will work,
unfortunately.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10 (comment).

[SomeoneWeird]

Ok so the easy solution to this problem is to match up the op list with people who have access to the github org. We already wait quite a bit of time before they're added anyway.

@stones Well, I think that we have people who are able to help manage the channel but are otherwise unable to help organise social events. Shrug, could be wrong :)

[nicholasf]

Hey all,

I've given @wolfeidau co-founder status in the channel (see /msg chanserv info #polyhack). I've also opped @damncabbage . I'm hoping that no further administration will be required.

The important thing to communicate is that ops will not be used against members of the channel. If there are any disputes amongst members we will resolve them socially, as we have been. Ops exist only to deal with a disruptive element of visitors who want to bring rudeness into channel. They will be invisible unless this is happening.

Cheers!
Nicholas