Re: A few observations about GIMPNET

On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 18:24 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
> 2012/10/4 Bryen M Yunashko <suserocks bryen com>:
> > On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 17:57 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
> >> I've been a long time GIMPNET user and tried to propose multiple ideas
> >> without success and without receiving a good rationale about why
> >> things couldn't change. I've seen many people using home-hosted bots
> >> to administer channels, I've seen people having to join #opers
> >> multiple times to request an OP status or a simple channel update and
> >> I feel it's time to find a solution.
> >
> > I agree with the frustrations you list with GIMPNET usage.  But, I'm not
> > sure I agree with the "home-hosted" bots rationale.  While a number of
> > bots are there as a workaround for some of the limitations in GIMPNET,
> > home-hosted bots will always be present, even on Freenode.
> Most of the home-hosted bots are there to substitute the work of
> missing services like nickserv and chanserv, the other ones I recall
> (nagbot and bugbot) are hosted by Bugzilla and by the GNOME
> infrastructure.

I had the idea that most bots are there for awareness.  That is, to
check the backlog later when a discussion (or the result) is not brought
to a mailing list.  In GNOME we do not have public records of IRC, so
one way to address the awareness issue (specially with timezone clash)
is having a bot there.

I do not see any special value in a nickserv or chanserv.  How many
cases of spoofing have we had in order to justify a nickserv?  Do we
really channel operators?

I find more value in a log of public channels.  So, we can link them in
case a discussion did not hit a mailing list or the wiki (something like Some people might have privacy concerns,

Germán Póo-Caamaño

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]