[1] states clearly that "[we do not allow] bots or scripts that talk or publicly log the channel". However, [2] has chat logs going back many months for #gentoo and #gentoo-prefix. This was already reported last year by Arch Linux channel operators, but the repository owner did not respond to any queries. I have banned the user from #gentoo so that, barring ban evasion, no additional chat logs will be published. However, I would like to have the #gentoo chat logs removed, which would effectively the entire repository has to be removed. I did not want to report the user to GH as I only represent #gentoo and not the entire Gentoo Project. Perhaps comrel@ can take this on? Maybe prefix@ has something to say about this, too? [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Ops#Channel_Policy [2] https://github.com/grobe0ba/logs/tree/master/freenode
In my view, this goes way beyond ComRel job. I'd argue this would be related to the Gentoo Group Contacts, if you were trying to get the user banned on the freenode IRC network - group contacts are the liaisons with Freenode, but that's not what you're asking here. So I'd argue this could be dealt with by infra, as that's the team responsible for our infrastructure, but then again infra isn't involved with IRC. So perhaps this should fall to the Trustees as the legal representatives of Gentoo. If they agree with moving forward and wish, they can ask infra to carry on the request.
A violation of the rules seems clear cut as far as responses go, whoever normally handles bans and rule enforcement for the channels in question would be within their remit to ban.
On what grounds do you propose asking GitHub to remove it? The best that I can see so far is stating that the user is violating the AUP that's provided by chanserv when clients join the channel (I've split the lines here to be clearer. > ChanServ(ChanServ@services.)- [#gentoo] Welcome to #gentoo > || Acceptable Usage Policy @ http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/irc.xml > || Keep the language clean > || Google is your friend > || No bots or scripts that talk > || Turn off public away messages > || More than three lines to #flood or a pastebin service, no spam! Besides the really old GuideXML link there that should be updated (it's already a redirect); you have to take a further hop to get to the channel policy that you linked. While I agree with the intent of the policy, I think it's flogging a dead horse, because the logs have been available elsewhere in the past, and probably still are (I haven't gone looking for them).
my 2c; public is public, although we don't encourage publication of logs we can't really stop it in any way, and what happens in these channels are expected to be public on some level to begin with -- from Gentoo's side we don't advocate any expectation of privacy in what happens in these channels, and as such any such publication is outside of the scope of, at least, comrel, but also the broader Gentoo ecosystem.
(In reply to Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto from comment #1) > In my view, this goes way beyond ComRel job. > I'd argue this would be related to the Gentoo Group Contacts, if you were > trying to get the user banned on the freenode IRC network - group contacts > are the liaisons with Freenode, but that's not what you're asking here. > So I'd argue this could be dealt with by infra, as that's the team > responsible for our infrastructure, but then again infra isn't involved with > IRC. > So perhaps this should fall to the Trustees as the legal representatives of > Gentoo. If they agree with moving forward and wish, they can ask infra to > carry on the request. I don't see any action that is required. While I expect the community to enforce our channel policies (e.g. ban people who violate them) I don't expect to achieve a world where no one logs #gentoo (because as K.F. notes it is likely a defacto public place.) This does not mean that community members cannot complain, but I don't expect the board to exert any effort to take this content down. -A
Ya, I really agree with K_F here, if anon can join then there isn't much of an expectation of privacy.
unlocking the bug, so that proctors can see it.
I don't see why this bug report was closed as RESOLVED/FIXED when in fact no one did any work except grobe0ba, who has since removed the repo and apologised (which does actually resolve the issue). This bug report's comments and reassignments show lots of people misunderstanding and misrepresenting the problem or stating that their team does not represent the community in external affairs like these. Next time a Gentoo sub-project seeks project-wide representation, who should they approach, especially when the situation is sensitive because it crosses several community boundaries (Gentoo/Freenode/Github)?
Removing proctors from CC. Our scope is Code of Conduct enforcement, and we don't really see how this falls under the CoC: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
(In reply to Jerould en Roovers from comment #8) > I don't see why this bug report was closed as RESOLVED/FIXED when in fact no > one did any work except grobe0ba, who has since removed the repo and > apologised (which does actually resolve the issue). > > This bug report's comments and reassignments show lots of people > misunderstanding and misrepresenting the problem or stating that their team > does not represent the community in external affairs like these. Next time a > Gentoo sub-project seeks project-wide representation, who should they > approach, especially when the situation is sensitive because it crosses > several community boundaries (Gentoo/Freenode/Github)? Jeroen, my comment focused on that issue, who would / should represent us on an abuse complaint to a third party - is that not what you were asking for? IMHO, the infra team can do that when someone tries to abuse our infrastructure, but as I said, infra doesn't deal with IRC, so in my opinion this would fall to Trustees. The Trustees, including the President, that replied here didn't discard that, they just disagreed with any action being needed or making sense to this particular case - that is at least my reading of their comments.
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #8) > I don't see why this bug report was closed as RESOLVED/FIXED when in fact no > one did any work except grobe0ba, who has since removed the repo and > apologised (which does actually resolve the issue). > > This bug report's comments and reassignments show lots of people > misunderstanding and misrepresenting the problem or stating that their team > does not represent the community in external affairs like these. Next time a > Gentoo sub-project seeks project-wide representation, who should they > approach, especially when the situation is sensitive because it crosses > several community boundaries (Gentoo/Freenode/Github)? I assume the Council, since this is the project-wide body that the community created. I think its been made clear by many community members that the board does not in fact represent them in project-wide issues that are not fiscal or legal in nature and I don't think any of these reach that. -A
