IRC channel logs


back to list of logs

<zerwas>I wonder why only has instructions to install the dependencies of GNUnet but not GNUnet itself
<mark_weaver>zerwas: I guess it's a work-in-progress.
<mark_weaver>(like all of Guix)
<handheldCar>not sure how you saw that
<mst>I'm pretty sure when I first joined something told me the channel was logged.
*handheldCar doesn't see it.
<mst>doesn't see what?
<handheldCar>any message about logging
<mst>I would suspect gnunet_bot is the logger
*jxself doesn't see a message about logging either
<mst>hrm, I can't find one either
<mst>in which case somebody needs to fix that.
<jxself>Or stop logging.
*jxself wonders if the log is public
<mark_weaver>the log is publicly accessible, but we don't call much attention to it either.
<mst>you should notify new users of its existance somehow
<mst>not doing so is a horrible breach of netiquette
<mark_weaver>what would you suggest?
<mst>chanserv has an entrymsg option under set
<mst>so '/msg chanserv set #guix entrymsg <text here>' where that text mentions logging
<mark_weaver>you can suggest it to civodul. I don't have ops privs.
<mst>well, I guess whoever spots him first
<mst>plus he should really add a bunch more people with access, currently if his login dies for some reason you're toast
<mark_weaver>well, his login wouldn't "die". any temporary login problem would be fixed soon enough, I'm sure, and ops privs are rarely needed.
<handheldCar>What do you name your package definitions?
<mark_weaver>civodul is away until Jan 2, btw.
<mark_weaver>"mostly off-line" were his words
<mst>'his login wouldn't "die"'
<mst>ah, the "don't worry, it'll never break" approach to redundancy
<mst>yes, that's always a great plan
<mark_weaver>handheldCar: I'd suggest looking at a bunch of existing package definitions to get a feel for the usual naming conventions.
<mark_weaver>I didn't say "it'll never break". The point is, any problem would be fixed fairly soon, because freenode is friendly with GNU and so ultimately any problem would get fixed in due time. and we have no commitments to maintaining complete uptime and quick response to issues on this IRC channel. That's not our job. We're all volunteers here.
<mark_weaver>handheldCar: look in gnu/packages/*.scm within the guix source code.
<mst>mark_weaver: yes. and freenode is also all volunteers, and if the failure mode I'm describing occurs then a significant amount of fucking about will be required by the staff
<mst>which is WHY I'm mentioning it
<mst>I'm trying to conserve volunteer time by being minimally responsible about channel setup
<mark_weaver>talk to civodul about it
<mst>I will. maybe he'll be less dismissive of trying to avoid wasting volunteers' time than you are.
<zacts>mst: are you interested in guix?
<jxself>Well, since this channel is publicly logged I will have to stop using it until that changes. Goodbye.
<viric>Any Englishman that could help me with some words I don't understand?
<viric>"One immediate effect of this statute was to ban, with severe penalties, any processions or demonstrations smacking of witchcraft"
<viric>what is "smacking"?
<viric>mhhh "smelling of withchcraft". Rising suspect about witchcraft, I guess.
<jmd>viric: Try ##English
<viric>ah, good point
<viric>I simply seemed to recall that there were English in this channel :)
<jmd>But I think "smacking", in this sense means "having all the indications of"
<viric>ah, all the indications.
<viric>thank you
<viric>and: "having a little smack and entrance in witchcraft"?
<jmd>I have no idea.
<jmd>I'm sure however that "smacking" in this sense is a very recent introduction to the English language.
<viric>well, you can imagine that my sentence is not very recent. hehe
<jmd>Ask the guys on ##English
<viric>11:58 [freenode] -!- Cannot join to channel ##English (You are banned)
<viric>no idea why
<jmd>viric: Some channels require you to be identified.
<jmd>I don't know if that is one of them.
<jmd>I can join it!
<jmd>viric: Actually it looks like they have banned gateway/tor-sasl
<viric>then I won't get in
<mark_weaver>mst: I'd like to understand what you're suggesting exactly regarding "minimally responsible" "channel setup". Your failure mode was that civodul's account "dies". Are you suggesting that in that case, civodul should simply abandon that account and make a new one with a different name, so to not waste the time of the freenode ops?
<jmd> FWIW I agree that if a channel is logged, particularly if it is publically logged, then the /topic should say so.
<mark_weaver>okay. well, I guess what's probably going to happen is that the public logging will go away completely, and a few of us will just operate private loggers instead.
<mark_weaver>and then we can all feel comfortable in the naive belief that no logs are being kept.
<mark_weaver>Personally, I don't see how anyone can have an expectation of privacy on a well-publicized IRC channel that's open to all.
<jmd>That is true. But a short statement in the /topic "This channel is logged" costs nothing, and seems like the polite thing to do.
<mark_weaver>well, fair enough. but the effect will be that the currently semi-private logs (in the sense that most people don't know about them) will become more widely known, and then we'll probably just have to shut them down.
<mark_weaver>and I could immediately see that this was the likely outcome, which is why I've been less than enthusiastic about the idea. but I guess it's too late for that now.
<mark_weaver>so we'll go from "everyone has access to these logs" to "only a few select people, plus several intelligence agencies have access to the logs". not sure if that's an improvement.
<mark_weaver>and fwiw, I'm a big believer in protecting personal privacy, and I've put a lot of effort into that. I just don't think a public IRC channel open to all is a place to expect privacy.
<jmd>I agree. That is why I don't like channels which say "logging prohibited".
<mark_weaver>(I worked closely with Phil Zimmermann as the second full-time programmer hired at PGP, Inc)
<mark_weaver>(the last non-free software I worked on)
<jmd>I also object to freenode channels which are "invite only".
<mark_weaver>hmm. I don't think I have a problem with that in general, but I think I *would* object to it depending on the purpose of the channel.
<mark_weaver>*in some cases
<mark_weaver>I think it's reasonable for a small group of people to have a private conversation amongst themselves, and while I would probably use Jabber/XMPP for that, a lot of people are accustomed to IRC.
<mst>mark_weaver: several of the failure modes I've seen would involve that account no longer existing afterwards. which would also mean that this channel registration wouldn't exist, and would revert to freenode staff - at which point you'd have a significant amount of paperwork involved to get it back, or you'd need to abandon it
<mst>mark_weaver: what I'm suggesting is having more than one person with root access so if one of them loses his private key we don't have to make the hosting company break into the system for us, basically
<mst>mark_weaver: of course, if this channel was under the aegis of the GNU project presence on freenode the GNU group contact could sort things out - but it isn't, it would be called #gnu-guix in that case; being called #guix means it's explicitly independent of freenode's existing relationship with GNU
<mst>mark_weaver: I'll happily explain this further -if- you're actually intending to help me fix this stuff; if not, I'd rather wantil civodul is available and speak to him directly
<mst>s/wantil/wait until/
<zacts>hello #guix!