Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Tome vote results

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Tome vote results
  • Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:43:03 -0400

David Kowis (dkowis AT shlrm.org) wrote [09.10.08 10:22]:
> 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
>

Let us not forget the venerable http://sourcemage.org/IRCQuotes

Also, considering the fact that there are IRC chat search engines now
which already do all the archiving, how much should we really consider
the freenode statement above? I'd first like to make it clear that I
don't have a particular opinion either for or against the public
logging, since I do consider anything said in a channel to be public. It
seems to me though that the freenode statement could only be taken as a
suggestion though, since any user in our channel could be publishing
their own logs on a website. The only control we could exert over that
is banning the user from the channel (likely the reason freenode
suggests getting permission from channel owners). However, if we are
publishing them, we are the channel owners, so we have automatic
permission.

I also disagree with some of the claims of the freenode message. They
claim that most users don't publish logs because they don't consider
that what they type/say in the channels is something that can be
recorded and live on. I doubt that this is truly the case. I would think
that more users aren't aware that they themselves can log IRC
conversations (there are quite a few people who use IRC, but don't
really know how to use the features of their IRC clients beyond just
logging in and chatting). There is also the fact that if a user has a
log and knows about it, it doesn't mean that user also has website where
they *can* publish that log. Not everyone has the resources.
Furthermore, there is the possibility that a lot of users in fact are
publishing logs, but if they don't advertise that they are doing so
freenode will be unaware of this fact, and therefore think that no one
is publishing.

I do agree that it's still a good idea to inform people that the logs
are being published (if they are), but that can simply be done as a
short sentence in the topic (Conversations in this channel are being
logged and published at ...). I don't think we need to provide a way for
people to not be logged, since that already exists: don't say anything
in the channel, or don't join. Nobody pays us for the services we
provide, so we aren't obligated to kow-tow to anyone. If we decide to
publish logs and someone doesn't like it, nobody forced them to join our
channel and start chatting. Of course if someone volunteers to implement
a method of not logging users, then that's fine, but it will take
someone's work (even manually removing specific lines of text from a log
per direct request from a user takes work). That work may be trivial, it
may not. It would depend on the implementation, and how many people were
requesting removal (in the case of manual removal, I don't think the
number would matter for automated removal). Having the warning in the
topic would let people know that joining the channel and participating
in chats means they will be logged and published.

--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpqNrtdXEnDP.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page