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 http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/). Some people might have privacy concerns, though. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part