Public SourceMage Discussion List

[David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>]

Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
> :2009-10-08T08:06:David Kowis:
> 
>> Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik wrote:
>>> :2009-10-08T10:30:Bor Kraljic:
>>>
>>>>  - sometimes would be useful to have irclogs available online. just from 
>>>> #sourcemage other channels are mostly dead. I was on rockbox channel and 
>>>> then saw that they really have nice way if showing logs ( 
>>>> http://www.rockbox.org/irc/ ) [maybe we allready have this but I just 
>>>> couldn't find it]
>>> I'm opposed to this. We have !menti which allows users to search the
>>> logs which is more than enough for most needs.
>>>
>>> If we did publish logs we would need to notify each user that we do so
>>> and where those logs are and possibly provide a way to have them
>>> excluded from the logs.
>> There is no presumption to privacy on IRC. If we log the channels (which
>> are all publicly logged anyway,) and post the results, we don't have to
>> redact anything. The responsibility lies on you the individual to not
>> say something you don't want repeated.
> 
> Freenode channel guidelines disagree there.
> 
> If you're considering publishing channel logs, think it through. The
> freenode network is an interactive environment. Even on public channels,
> most users don't weigh their comments with the idea that they'll be
> enshrined in perpetuity. For that reason, few participants publish logs. 
> 
> If you're publishing logs on an ongoing basis, your channel topic should
> reflect that fact. Be sure to provide a way for users to make comments
> without logging, and get permission from the channel owners before you
> start. If you're thinking of "anonymizing" your logs (removing
> information that identifies the specific users), be aware that it's
> difficult to do it well—replies and general context often provide
> identifying information which is hard to filter. 
> 
> If you just want to publish a single conversation, be careful to get
> permission from each participant. Provide as much context as you can.
> Avoid the temptation to publish or distribute logs without permission in
> order to portray someone in a bad light. The reputation you save will
> most likely be your own. 
> 
> And also where exactly are the channels publicly logged? I haven't seen
> any mention of them. If they are then we need to notify users. And yes
> providing an option to filter users that do not wish their chats logged
> is the right thing to do.
> 

None of that text existed in 2006. So that's a new thing, since I've
looked at it. It was always a public network, and thus anyone could
record whatever they wanted. I consider it akin to talking in a large
room where anyone could walk in or out. I think scry's recording of the
channel stuff, as well as page_six's recording now fall into this
category. So we are logging the channels, and they are published. So I
guess we now have to "comply" with this nonsense.

David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature