I was going to do these individually, but it will just turn into spam, and on the most part this is a no-brainer.
I propose the removal of the following members of the sig, on the basis they carry a vote currently..but may not be active, or interested in the sig.
ausil, bit4man, deepsa, ivazquez, jkeating, jsmith, jsteffan, mkearey, pfrields, wtogami, kanarip
I guess the simple thing is, if you agree with the removal, vote with "+1", if you disagree with it all "-1", and if you disagree with one (or more particular user's removal "-1 <username>"
Otherwise this thread could easily turn into 10 threads and get unnecessarily messy.
There are additional users that are in the access lists for the #fedora, #fedora-ops and #fedora-social that should be added to this list.
Here is a list including nicks that are in the channel access lists of the 4 channels, #fedora, #fedora-social, #fedora-ops, and #fedora-unregistered
ausil(dgilmore) bit4man deepsa ivazquez jkeating(ender) jsmith jsteffan(daMaestro) mkearey(mutk) pfrields(stickster) wtogami(Warren) kanarip che foolish Pix thomasj kushal jlaska mharris AdamW nman64 scatterbrained codeblock jds2001 ricky
-- Bob
Replying to [comment:2 bjensen]:
Here is a list including nicks that are in the channel access lists of the 4 channels, #fedora, #fedora-social, #fedora-ops, and #fedora-unregistered ausil(dgilmore) bit4man deepsa ivazquez jkeating(ender) jsmith jsteffan(daMaestro) mkearey(mutk) pfrields(stickster) wtogami(Warren) kanarip che foolish Pix thomasj kushal jlaska mharris AdamW nman64 scatterbrained codeblock jds2001 ricky
I am +1 for removal of all these users from the irc-support-operators fas group and the 4 channels mentioned above.
+1 for all, I see a few of those users active but not active in the SIG.
Even though I created this ticket..I'm -1'ing thomasj's removal as he's still interested in being active in the sig...awesome!
Rather than blind-siding these people, has anyone attempted to contact them to see if they want to be involved?
Many of those names are simply MIA, so I do not see this as a major issue.
I would hesitate to vote on any person listed that is either FPL or a Board member. Just a cautionary item to note.
Office administration type detail, the FAS group should not have people in it that are not +o in any of the four mentioned channels. There is no hard requirement that I know of for being +o in some channel and not belonging to the FAS group. (unidirectional)
To illustrate:
FAS group member => also has +o in one or more of #fedora, #fedora-social, #fedora-ops, #fedora-unregistered.
+o member => may or may not be in FAS group. Preferably, they are but may have some reason to not include themselves.
I'm still in this one channel that I have operator privileges on (#fedora, none of the other channels). Remove me if you think I'm (likely to be) going to abuse the privileges or are likely to have any of my systems compromised in any way, shape or form that would allow anyone else to abuse the privileges attached to my account, otherwise I suggest you keep my privileges intact.
I am not actually an op in any of these channels, but I '''was''' given permission to idle around in #fedora-ops. I'd like that to remain, if possible.
Replying to [comment:7 kanarip]:
Kanarip has only been active 4 times in the past year (May 23, Jun 10, Dec 22, Jan 07). This lack of inactivity is not active in my opinion.
Replying to [comment:8 codeblock]:
The reason you were invited was to help inform the SIG when there were infrastructure problems, now that #fedora-noc exists that is no longer needed. Can you otherwise justify your presence in the #fedora-ops channel?
I am not active in #fedora-ops anymore and for that reason voting rights there makes no sense for me. I am definitely still interesting in keeping up with the the rest of the fedora channels and other involvements with Fedora (bit4man)
I'd like to stay an op in at least #fedora and #fedora-social, if possible. I haven't been as active for the past few weeks because I've been starting a new job, but I anticipate returning to my regular activity level within the next week or two.
Replying to [comment:12 jsmith]:
You were never elected as an op you were only given that status as a courtesy when you were FPL. Seeing that there is no such courtesy provided for former FPLs you would have to be re-elected to maintain that status.
+1 for dropping
-1 to removing jsmith's ops status.
-1 to removing kanarip's ops
While I' m not an op per se, I occasionally help out in #fedora (and intend that activity to increase, not decrease, as the result of no longer being a Board member soon-ish assuming anyone else steps up and nominates themselves, which was the reason that I was invited to hang out in #fedora-ops).
Since that reason no longer exists, I guess that I would have to stand for "election" to be an op of #fedora. Consider this a request for said election.
Please go ahead and remove me.
Replying to [comment:16 jstanley]:
While I' m not an op per se, I occasionally help out in #fedora (and intend that activity to increase, not decrease, as the result of no longer being a Board member soon-ish assuming anyone else steps up and nominates themselves, which was the reason that I was invited to hang out in #fedora-ops). Since that reason no longer exists, I guess that I would have to stand for "election" to be an op of #fedora. Consider this a request for said election.
Hey Jon,
Tradition and or unwritten policy is that self nominations are not accepted, an existing op sponsors your nomination and then acts as a mentor of sorts during a probation. I'm sure you would not have trouble finding someone to do this once you are able to become more active in the #fedora channel.
I forgot to mention that you are NOT an op in any of our channels, you are on the list because you are "warming a seat" in #fedora-ops one of the things we are trying to do is trim out people that don't really need to be there so we can see easier who is ops and probably that we need more active ops.
I would like to be considered for continued operator access and membership in the SIG. I have not been attending meetings for reasons unrelated to this ticket. I am still very active on Freenode and in the community.
Replying to [comment:21 jsteffan]:
-1 for removing Jon's ops
-1 to removing daMaestro/jsteffan's ops
I believe the current votes are as follows:
{{{ ausil/dgilmore +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
bit4man +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
deepsa +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
ivazquez +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
jkeating/ender +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
jsmith/scatterbrained +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen) -1 = 1 (nb)
jsteffan/daMaestro +1 = 1 (Khaytsus) -1 = 2 (bjensen, nb)
mkearey/mutk +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
pfrields/stickster +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
wtogami/warren - RESIGNED +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
kanarip +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen) -1 = 1 (nb)
che +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
foolish +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
Pix +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
thomasj +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen) -1 = 1 (dcr226)
kushal +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
jlaska +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
mharris +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
AdamW +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
nman64 +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
codeblock +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
jds2001 +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
ricky +1 = 2 (Khaytsus, bjensen)
}}}
It's been stated that "dcr and bob are being a little overboard on who they proposed to remove." My list was created by scanning the channel access lists, pulling from them names that are not active in the channels, never have been active in the sig and those that I thought should be pinged about their status. I do not see how this is in any way overboard.
I'm actually -1 to mharris' removal.
He's a resource of experience, and is very active on #fedora-social. I'd like to keep him in the sig (although he's currently +o on #fedora-ops).
Provided nobody else has an issue with it, I'd like to push back the final decision making for this ticket to next week's meeting.
I'd like everyone to have had plenty of chance to read nirik's email.
Here's my explicit approval for removing me from the #fedora-ops access list.
FYI, I did send an email to all folks listed in this ticket pointing to it.
I am for keeping anyone who is listed in comment:2 and who has also commented here that they wish to remain.
Rationale: This could be a good chance for some of these people who wish to remain or become more involved again to do so. If they are inactive again later, we could readdress that down the road.
So, I am for keeping: jsteffan, kanarip, and jsmith and leaving invites for jstanley, and codeblock with the hopes that they all become more involved. If not, we can address that down the road.
Meeting 2012-05-24
Discussed the list, decided it was hard to manage and tally votes. I will work on a wiki page to make things more clear and easier to count.
Replying to [comment:13 bjensen]:
Replying to [comment:12 jsmith]: I'd like to stay an op in at least #fedora and #fedora-social, if possible. I haven't been as active for the past few weeks because I've been starting a new job, but I anticipate returning to my regular activity level within the next week or two. You were never elected as an op you were only given that status as a courtesy when you were FPL. Seeing that there is no such courtesy provided for former FPLs you would have to be re-elected to maintain that status. +1 for dropping
Sorry I was partially incorrect, you have not been a channel op. The courtesy you were given was actually membership in the irc-support-operators FAS group and invitee status in the #fedora-ops channel. Sorry for the confusion. To become an op in #fedora and/or #fedora-social you will have to be nominated and voted upon.
Still +1 for dropping.
Replying to [comment:30 bjensen]:
Meeting 2012-05-24 Discussed the list, decided it was hard to manage and tally votes. I will work on a wiki page to make things more clear and easier to count. -- Bob
Please vote on the wiki page. [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bjensen/sandbox/IRC_SIG/Ticket_107| Ticket 107 Wiki Page]
Consensus at the [http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-05-31/irc-support-sig.2012-05-31-17.00.log.html meeting on 2012-05-31] reached to push this ticket another week. Reminder for everyone to vote on the [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bjensen/sandbox/IRC_SIG/Ticket_107 Ticket 107 Wiki Page]. I will work on cleaning this up so it is more clear what users are impacted by this ticket.
+1 to remove any that did not reply or is ok with being taken off the list!!
We will be acting on this based on the votes on the wiki page in the next few days.
I will keep this open until that work is done.
Ok. A status report:
I have performed all the removals that were approved with the following exceptions:
These folks have a "Not sure what they want to do, we should check with them" status:
Anvil Che
Could someone confirm with them their intentions?
These folks I am unable to remove from these places due to lacking permissions. :) Will ask them to remove themselves or otherwise get someone to do it:
kushal permissions in #fedora-social warren permissions in #fedora
These folks I am not 100% sure of their email address to remove them from the sig fas group:
mutk
As far as my timetable will allow me to, I'd like to get more involved in the SIG life. Although this wont be easy before September, I'll try joining the IRC SIG meeting after my summer vacations. FWIW, I used to checkthese tickets at least once/twice a month, and according to my workload. So, please postpone your vote/decision to 2013.
This being said, I intent to keep helping on #fedora as far as my time, knowledge and humor allow me to, both as a regular user and channel operator.
And, by the way, even if I've got a working fedoraproject.org e-mail address, the best way to contact me and obtaining an answer is IRC, during European office hours.
Regards, Dams.
I'm good with killing off this ticket as being pointless if there are no objections.
Old ticket, no longer needs to be open
Login to comment on this ticket.