I find it a bit disconcerning after listening in on the UDS session today
concerning the LoCo Council and the decision for logging channels. Never
once in this entire thread did we get any feedback from the LC concerning
the feedback that was given. I still don't see the reason to implement
proacti
Zach Gibbens schreef op wo 06-10-2010 om 20:27 [-0400]:
> I do like what ubuntu-nl did, creating an off topic channel & seeing
> that two channels work, without trading one for the other.
Actually, ubuntu-nl has more than those 2 channels and one of the other
channels isn't logged currently but
I agree with this. After careful consideration I would rather this be by
request and on a loco by loco basis.
~ cprofitt
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 12:55 -0400, Daniel Chen wrote:
> Mandating logging as a requirement seems rather extreme. I'd rather
> see it implemented by request - per-LoCo team - t
On 10/08/2010 07:26 AM, David wrote:
> On 10/07/2010 07:22 PM, David wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 07:27 PM, Zach Gibbens wrote:
>>> I know Tennessee had some opinions on it (at the time I thought it was
>>> loco or irc council policy for some time, I was just a regional contact
>>> back then) I'm goin
A suggestion:
Perhaps it would be helpful if the LoCo Council publishes a concise
problem statement, and then presents it's rationale on why/how logging
IRC channels will solve the problem(s).
Often decisions like these are quite unpopular until the reason(s)
behind them are well understood. We
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Ubuntu LoCo Council
wrote:
> When new contributors are checking out teams they will have an opportunity
> to read past logs in effort to better learn more about the team, this will
> help them to see what they can expect from the team, and even potentially
> find wh
dear sir
I want to appreciate ubuntu here in my area or state what cani do for this
--
Thanks & Regards
Arihant Jain
--
loco-contacts mailing list
loco-contacts@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/loco-contacts
On 10/08/2010 08:26 AM, David wrote:
> On 10/07/2010 07:22 PM, David wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 07:27 PM, Zach Gibbens wrote:
>>> I know Tennessee had some opinions on it (at the time I thought it was
>>> loco or irc council policy for some time, I was just a regional contact
>>> back then) I'm going
On 10/07/2010 07:22 PM, David wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 07:27 PM, Zach Gibbens wrote:
>> I know Tennessee had some opinions on it (at the time I thought it was
>> loco or irc council policy for some time, I was just a regional contact
>> back then) I'm going to add it to our teams agenda for our mee
On 10/06/2010 07:27 PM, Zach Gibbens wrote:
> I know Tennessee had some opinions on it (at the time I thought it was
> loco or irc council policy for some time, I was just a regional contact
> back then) I'm going to add it to our teams agenda for our meeting
> tomorrow. I know personally it's e
I know Tennessee had some opinions on it (at the time I thought it was
loco or irc council policy for some time, I was just a regional contact
back then) I'm going to add it to our teams agenda for our meeting
tomorrow. I know personally it's earned it's weight, but others didn't
like how widel
Ubuntu LoCo Council schreef op ma 04-10-2010 om 20:01 [+0100]:
> While some teams have created offtopic channels in the past this has
> also lead to the team core channel not being used and in some cases
> killing off their channel so please be considerate of this.
Looking at #ubuntu-nl (72 onlin
On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 23:27 -0400, Indigo196 wrote:
> In the end my only concern would be that it could drive some folks to
> non-official channels which would dilute the main purpose of the
> channel
> -- to be a gathering place for all those interested in the team.
>
> I myself do not care and I
I would have to agree with the overall intent of the logging. I can also
appreciate that there are those who do not like that being an always-on
'forced' thing.
In the end my only concern would be that it could drive some folks to
non-official channels which would dilute the main purpose of the ch
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Richard JOHNSON wrote:
> And to add to my previous email.
>
> I think there are far better uses for a server than to host a bunch of log
> files of what will more than likely be nothing but fairly useless chatter
> or the members being social.
>
> I would rather see
And to add to my previous email.
I think there are far better uses for a server than to host a bunch of log
files of what will more than likely be nothing but fairly useless chatter
or the members being social.
I would rather see physical resources be utilized for making Ubuntu better.
--
Name
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 08:01:53PM +0100, Ubuntu LoCo Council wrote:
> Dear LoCo Contacts,
>
> Greetings from the LoCo Council, We would like to take a moment and discuss
> some ideas with you about implementing LoCo Bot logging of #ubuntu- channels
> on freenode. There is a method to this madnes
personally I see this only as a good thing. We have an open and
transparent community, with open mailing list archives and a culture of
blogging, tweeting, denting stuff that we do that is interesting.
I see IRC as an extension of the mailing lists, just more realtime
interactive short messages and
18 matches
Mail list logo
