On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 19:00 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 4 October 2012 17:09, Germán Póo-Caamaño <gpoo gnome org> wrote: > > 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 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. > > If people are already running logging bots, I fail to see how someone > could use <privacy> as a reason to not have official IRC logs. Some > people never log out and have de facto logging too. It just means that > a bunch of people have to duplicate the work of recording what's being > discussed when they aren't signed in to IRC. Considering that Privacy != secret and public channel != public record, I can see some differences: The cases you mention are, in general, for personal use. It is different making those logs public. The language used in IRC is more relaxed, it can be "professional" (like in an office) or casual (like in a pub). That is the way we understand it, but outsiders could have a different perception (a job recruiter, future employer, immigration officer, police officer, etc.). Those outsiders are not going to set a bot, but they will find your information on the web. FWIW, I would like us to have public IRC logs. But if a hacker (or group of them) have privacy concern, we should not dismiss it because IRC is already public. -- Germán Póo-Caamaño http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part