#104 New op
Closed: Invalid None Opened 11 years ago by aglaser.

No Description Provided


I want to nominate nb(Nick Bebout) for an op in #fedora-social. I know others said they would or would think about it. I think he would make a good op and is around quite a bit.
Nick knows the rules that we work by and use and is heavily involved in Fedora.

Thanks
Andrea Glaser

+1 from me. I don't know how active he is in social, but that might be due to me not being as active in there as in the past. ;)

Strange. Two days ago, Clive +1'd this but I do not see it recorded in the ticket itself.

+1 from me as well, just remember that -botgames is not -social please :)

Here's my 2 cents for what its worth:

I think Nick is a cool person, and does huge amounts of fedora and it's community...much more than I currently contribute on a haulistic level.

However, this is about IRC channel operators..and I possibly have a slightly different view than some.

For me, being a channel op on an IRC channel is about 2 main things.

1) Knowledge on the subject matter that the channel pertains to. (In the example of #fedora, this would be a technical understanding of how the distribution functions, in order to help maintain the high level of technical support that #fedora trys to attain)
2) Channel Management

The latter is most important when discussing #fedora-social, because (apart from bacon) there isn't really a subject matter..its a social channel after all.

So, I'd have to ask myself...does Nick display good channel management qualities with specific reference to #fedora-social?

The short answer is, I don't know. The reason I don't know is, that Nick hasn't really had an opportunity to manage the channel how the sig would deem appropriate (the power to kick/ban has nothing to do with the ability to manage a position on the channel). Put simply, he isn't active enough for me to have seen him manage any of the situations that might arrise in #f-s.

I haven't bothered "grep -c"ing logs, because I don't really think its neccessary.

A couple of examples of channel management situations I would expect an op to handle:

1) Taboo or potential flame-inducing subjects
2) Particularly awkward or aggressive users
3) Off topic discussion

I've personally not witnessed Nick handle (or have the opportunity to handle) any of the above examples...so I cannot truthfully comment on his ability to manage that channel on an ongoing basis, and as a result I cannot vote for his instatement as a channel op.

I'm almost certain that he would be capable of managing those situations..but the process of nomination kinda relies on a retrospective view on this quality, and I think there are a handful of #f-social regulars that already display that ability..that should maybe have been nominated before Nick.

So, my summary is that I'm currently "-1", this position will absolutely change based on an increase in activity for nb on #fedora-social, dealing first hand with the issues that a channel op would need to deal with.

As a side note, this comment is by no means any type of personal attack or "sides" "teams" or anything else...its purely how I see things, It would be cool to have more -social ops (and more ops in general) so hopefully this thread comment helps to work toward that.

Also, I'm perfectly happy to re-visit my vote, if anyone can provide me with specific instances that would demonstrate a good ability to manage #fedora-social

Cheers

Dave

Dave
In the past we have given people ops in -social to see this issue rather than releaseing them blindly in #fedora

+1 from me, I have worked with Nick in other situations and planning to work with him doing a VE session at SELF

Dave In the past we have given people ops in -social to see this issue rather than releaseing them blindly in #fedora

Couple of questions here:

1) Does this mean that the current intention is to "release" Nick onto #fedora?[[BR]]
2) Because something happened in the past...does that make it policy. Why does the sig waste my time asking me to vote on a policy, if the policy is so weak..that it fails on its first use?[[BR]]
3) Apart from other contributions to the project (which I already appreciate), why choose Nick? I mean, why not randomly pick any Fedora contributor and give them ops on -social if -social is to be a proving ground for new ops?

+1 from me, I have worked with Nick in other situations and planning to work with him doing a VE session at SELF

Sure, as I said before..I'm fully aware of his contributions to the project, they are extensive. But the issue here is one of Policy, and Channel Management. My position doesn't change as I firmly believe +o should be given to someone who has already demonstrated an ability to manage the channel in question before they are given ops on that channel, using #fedora-social as a proving ground for potential ops sets a dangerous precedent imho.[[BR]]

I understand that there are social groups within the sig, and I may be considered outside of these peer circles on account of my lack of desire to duck and dodge policy, but lets face it "We've done it before, so its ok to do it again" isn't a good argument for this case.[[BR]]

Where is the incentive for IRC-helpers to want to be a part of the sig, if one can be a part of the sig because it is socially desirable to be a part?[[BR]]
Without naming names on this ticket (as the users in question might not want their nicks displayed publicly) there are regular users of #fedora-social, who regularly help out with channel management and attend meetings...why haven't they been nominated, are we not rubbing dirt in their faces just by creating this ticket in the first place?[[BR]]

When Nick attends regular meetings, and is active in the channel for any extended period of time, I'll happily reconsider. Until then, I'm still -1

Nick is an op in many channels and knows how to act and fix problems without banning if necessary. He also works and helps in many other fedora channels. He also maintains zodbot for all of fedora.

Since -social is a lot more laid back then fedora and other channels I have no problem with Nick being an op. We need another op or 2 since real life is 1st and many of us do not have the time to devote it being around 24/7.

I may not speak a lot sometimes in -social, but I do read it most of the time already. As for the meetings, they are while I am working so I am unable to attend. Just because someone cannot attend the meetings doesn't mean they are not involved.

I don't know if I am allowed to vote on my own nomination but the rules don't say I can't, and I'm a voting member since I'm an op in -unregistered and -ops so +1 from me of course :)

Replying to [comment:8 nb]:

I may not speak a lot sometimes in -social, but I do read it most of the time already. As for the meetings, they are while I am working so I am unable to attend. Just because someone cannot attend the meetings doesn't mean they are not involved.

So how does paying attention to -social convince me that you would make a good op? I'm not trying to be awkward, but there are a handful of users that are active, do attend meetings and actively disperse inflammatory situations, surely these users would be a better choice for op right at this moment in time?

I have never personally witnessed you behaving like an op on -social, so why should I assume you would make a good op?

WRT meetings, of course if you don't attend a meeting you aren't involved...how can you possibly effect the agenda or decisions if you aren't there to have your voice heard.

Timing is unfortunate, but nirik recently circulated alternative times (or requested suggestions for alternative times) to the list. AFAIK, I was the only person that responded.

I don't know if I am allowed to vote on my own nomination but the rules don't say I can't, and I'm a voting member since I'm an op in -unregistered and -ops so +1 from me of course :)

No, you can't vote for yourself IIRC

Again..please feel free to become active on -social, and my opinion will surely change..but I cannot vote for you on the basis that you are being vouched for, that could open the floodgates for an "Ole Boys Club" approach to managing the channels.

That is fine. Vote as you wish. If a majority of the people voting feel I am qualified that is fine with me. If they don't, then fine.

Passed following the "7 day voting period."

Congrats Nick!

-- Bob

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata