Logging All Public Project IRC Channels

[Benjamin Kerensa]

Hello All,

What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
and accountability but also to ensure compliance
with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
public log on their own starting this year
but we do not have an across the board policy.

Obviously some channels where sensitive topics are discussed would need to
be exempt but what about
the rest of the channels?

Projects like the Ubuntu Project already do this for the same reasons as
above:
http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ (Every channel related to the project since 2004)

[Ehsan Akhgari]

http://logbot.glob.com.au/ logs many public channels already.

[fantasai]

On 01/23/2015 03:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
> with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
> public log on their own starting this year
> but we do not have an across the board policy.

Is there a need for policing now? That's disappointing.

~fantasai
who has nothing against IRC logs, but is disappointed that they're
being added for bad-behavior surveillance and not for usefulness

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:50 PM, fantasai <fantasa...@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

> On 01/23/2015 03:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>

>> Hello All,
>>
>> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
>> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
>> with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
>> public log on their own starting this year
>> but we do not have an across the board policy.
>>
>

> Is there a need for policing now? That's disappointing.
>
> ~fantasai
> who has nothing against IRC logs, but is disappointed that they're
> being added for bad-behavior surveillance and not for usefulness
>
>

The primary purpose is transparency while having some ability enforce our
participation guidelines is secondary.

[Yvan Boily]

Does pervasive surveillance really equate with transparency and
accountability these days?



On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
> with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
> public log on their own starting this year
> but we do not have an across the board policy.
>

> Obviously some channels where sensitive topics are discussed would need to
> be exempt but what about
> the rest of the channels?
>
> Projects like the Ubuntu Project already do this for the same reasons as
> above:
> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ (Every channel related to the project since
> 2004)

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

I would certainly not equate logging irc to pervasive surveillance using
that rationale we should shut down our public mailing lists, make meetings
private and shutdown Air Mozilla

--
Benjamin Kerensa
http://benjaminkerensa.com

[Yvan Boily]

There is a distinct difference between how irc channels and public mailing
lists are used.

For a simple example contrast the personal content/water cooler talk that
makes it's way into burnt electrons and whether or not users infuse that
degree of interpersonal communication into mailing lists.

Air Mozilla and public meetings are not usually used to publish one on one
interactions, or even small team banter. In addition, the scope of the
meetings and sessions recorded are generally time-boxed sessions that
dominate engaged users attention, so there is far less likelihood of
inadvertently capturing a personal moment that would otherwise be ephemeral.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2015-01-23 12:43 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> What does everyone think about logging irc channels

I support logging public channels. I think it will make
participation easier and help communication, both across time zones
and for those new to the project (who can learn what was said on IRC
a year before).

-David

--
𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
- Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

[Benjamin Kerensa]

And FWIW many people are already logging through their bouncers and clients
already... I would bet most channels if not all are logged by individuals
already. So all I am asking is if Mozilla should log and make logs
available publicly for the benefit of the community.

I have scrollback on my bouncer but once I see it... It is gone and it
would be nice to be able to point back to a discussion.

[Johnny Stenback]

I full expect that the vast majority of our irc channels are already
logged, some obviously, others maybe a bit less so. Making the fact
that everything that's said on our irc channels is public official and
known seems like a good thing to me.

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance



--

jst

[Till Schneidereit]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> And FWIW many people are already logging through their bouncers and clients
> already... I would bet most channels if not all are logged by individuals
> already. So all I am asking is if Mozilla should log and make logs
> available publicly for the benefit of the community.
>
> I have scrollback on my bouncer but once I see it... It is gone and it
> would be nice to be able to point back to a discussion.
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:14 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
>
> > On Friday 2015-01-23 12:43 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > > What does everyone think about logging irc channels
> >
> > I support logging public channels. I think it will make
> > participation easier and help communication, both across time zones
> > and for those new to the project (who can learn what was said on IRC
> > a year before).
>

I also think this'd be a good idea. Living in Germany, I've had numerous
occasions where I would've liked logs for channels that don't have them,
and I frequently use them for those that do.

One of the channels that don't have a public log is #jslang; I wonder if
it'd be useful to ask non-Mozillians using that channel if they're ok with
logging. There might be more such cases: channels which are used by
communities that aren't deeply integrated with Mozilla.

[Yvan Boily]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but again, there is a difference between
"This is a public service, that might be logged" and "This is a public
service that is logged and published."

One is a notice that people might be logging, the other is the explicit,
long term collection of data about users, which is something that Mozilla
has, in general, been opposed to.

While I agree that there might be value, I don't think that value would be
worth the negative feedback from the change in perception that this logging
would trigger.

I also think that the argument that it might be helpful to refer back to
what was said on IRC a year ago is a weak argument; if there was something
that was said a year ago that is of value, technical or otherwise, then it
should have been republished in a more permanent structure via the wiki, a
post to a mailing list, or otherwise.

Setting aside the rest of the proposal, is there really value in logging
irc channel floods of racist and homophobic remarks for posterity? Do we
want to spend effort on curating those logs to prevent that?

The logs themselves are (as I have been assured by many people) worthless
as an accountability measure because it is very easy to impersonate someone
else, and are untrustworthy. As a transparency measure they provide some
insight into discussions, but at the end of the day many of the high value
discussions will implicitly lose value because other aspects of the
discussion are ephemeral (pastebins, etherpads, video calls which rely on
backchannel, etc, etc ,etc)

In order to derive value from this beyond a long term backscroll it
requires implementing a de facto surveillance apparatus which is at odds
with the values of many people in the community.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Johnny Stenback <j...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I full expect that the vast majority of our irc channels are already
> logged, some obviously, others maybe a bit less so. Making the fact
> that everything that's said on our irc channels is public official and
> known seems like a good thing to me.
>

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
> > And FWIW many people are already logging through their bouncers and
> clients
> > already... I would bet most channels if not all are logged by individuals
> > already. So all I am asking is if Mozilla should log and make logs
> > available publicly for the benefit of the community.
> >
> > I have scrollback on my bouncer but once I see it... It is gone and it
> > would be nice to be able to point back to a discussion.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:14 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday 2015-01-23 12:43 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> >> > What does everyone think about logging irc channels
> >>
> >> I support logging public channels. I think it will make
> >> participation easier and help communication, both across time zones
> >> and for those new to the project (who can learn what was said on IRC
> >> a year before).
> >>

[Gavin Sharp]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> While I agree that there might be value, I don't think that value would be
> worth the negative feedback from the change in perception that this logging
> would trigger.

I disagree. I think the benefits are real, and that you're vastly
overstating these costs, or the potential for "negative feedback".
Many channels are already logged publicly, and the cost vs. benefits
for those changes have been net positive.

Gavin

[Yvan Boily]

I received a message off list responding to my comments. Rather than
duplicating a message intended off-list (ironically referencing the need to
avoid private discussions :D), I will summarize the points and address them.

1. irc logging is not collecting the data of users
2. the goal is to archive public discussions that take place between paid
and non-paid contributors (like mailing lists)

WRT to 1) - I basically flat out reject this argument. If you are logging
usernames and attributing them to messages, you are explicitly collecting
data about users. In addition, some users will reveal information about
themselves on IRC that may constitute PII and would not want that going
into a public archive.
We are not talking about collecting data of users here we are talking about
having a way to archive publicly discussions that take place in our project
between paid and non-paid contributors. Much like we make public and
archive our discussions on mailing lists.

Importantly, many people on irc use the same handle on irc that they use on
other social media networks, and their irc or other social media
interactions could be used to unmask them. Just because someone *can*
aggregate and publish data about users doesn't mean that we *should* do it.

WRT to 2) Yes, it could be advantageous to capture some of these
discussions. I have, on more than one occasion, copied and pasted an irc
chat into a text file when it contains a relevant topic I aim to learn
about later. But on the whole, I think it is important to balance things;
some discussions and decisions are made on IRC, but more frequently they
happen on mailing lists or in meetings. Knowledge transfer happens via
IRC, but would an irc chat with someone about wrappers
<http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/search?query=wrappers> really bring more
value than a link to this blog post
<http://blog.mozilla.org/gabor/2012/12/13/security-wrappers-and-add-on-development/>
or this MDN article
<https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM/Language_bindings/XPConnect/XPConnect_wrappers>
?

We need to be open, and transparent, but not at the expense of the freedom
to participate in "water cooler" chat on IRC that would be inhibited by the
knowledge that everything not marked as private or secret is published.

This feels like a cheap way to create the appearance of transparency and
accountability without actually improving things.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Not to beat a dead horse here, but again, there is a difference between
> "This is a public service, that might be logged" and "This is a public
> service that is logged and published."
>
> One is a notice that people might be logging, the other is the explicit,
> long term collection of data about users, which is something that Mozilla
> has, in general, been opposed to.
>

> While I agree that there might be value, I don't think that value would be
> worth the negative feedback from the change in perception that this logging
> would trigger.
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Not to beat a dead horse here, but again, there is a difference between
> "This is a public service, that might be logged" and "This is a public
> service that is logged and published."
>
> One is a notice that people might be logging, the other is the explicit,
> long term collection of data about users, which is something that Mozilla
> has, in general, been opposed to.
>

We are not talking about collecting data of users here we are talking about
having a way to archive publicly discussions that take place in our project
between paid and non-paid contributors. Much like we make public and
archive our discussions on mailing lists.

There is not a major difference here only different mediums same concept
and purpose which is defaulting to open wherever possible.

I will leave this right here:
http://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html#avoid-private-discussions

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> I received a message off list responding to my comments. Rather than
> duplicating a message intended off-list (ironically referencing the need to
> avoid private discussions :D), I will summarize the points and address them.
>
> 1. irc logging is not collecting the data of users
> 2. the goal is to archive public discussions that take place between paid
> and non-paid contributors (like mailing lists)
>
> WRT to 1) - I basically flat out reject this argument. If you are logging
> usernames and attributing them to messages, you are explicitly collecting
> data about users. In addition, some users will reveal information about
> themselves on IRC that may constitute PII and would not want that going
> into a public archive.

> We are not talking about collecting data of users here we are talking
> about having a way to archive publicly discussions that take place in our
> project between paid and non-paid contributors. Much like we make public
> and archive our discussions on mailing lists.
>

> Importantly, many people on irc use the same handle on irc that they use
> on other social media networks, and their irc or other social media
> interactions could be used to unmask them. Just because someone *can*
> aggregate and publish data about users doesn't mean that we *should* do it.
>
> WRT to 2) Yes, it could be advantageous to capture some of these
> discussions. I have, on more than one occasion, copied and pasted an irc
> chat into a text file when it contains a relevant topic I aim to learn
> about later. But on the whole, I think it is important to balance things;
> some discussions and decisions are made on IRC, but more frequently they
> happen on mailing lists or in meetings. Knowledge transfer happens via
> IRC, but would an irc chat with someone about wrappers
> <http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/search?query=wrappers> really bring
> more value than a link to this blog post
> <http://blog.mozilla.org/gabor/2012/12/13/security-wrappers-and-add-on-development/>
> or this MDN article
> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Tech/XPCOM/Language_bindings/XPConnect/XPConnect_wrappers>
> ?
>
> We need to be open, and transparent, but not at the expense of the freedom
> to participate in "water cooler" chat on IRC that would be inhibited by the
> knowledge that everything not marked as private or secret is published.
>
> This feels like a cheap way to create the appearance of transparency and
> accountability without actually improving things.
>

Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?

[Ravi Pina]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
> Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?

> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is
private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly
logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging
is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from
independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is
logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile
environment.

Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional
or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less
willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or
just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made
public in this way.

This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record
people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as
there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated
and planned.

As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In
addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track
the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on
and off the channel.

I feel like if you strongly want logs for a particular channel there are
plenty of methods to do this on your own and that having them globally
captures and then published is not serving the Community at large so much
as a subset of the Community.

-r

[Gavin Sharp]

I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
the channel owner and change that.

Gavin

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> While I agree that there might be value, I don't think that value would be
>> worth the negative feedback from the change in perception that this logging
>> would trigger.
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ravi Pina <ra...@cow.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
> I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is
> private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly
> logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging
> is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from
> independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is
> logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile
> environment.
>

Wait are you trying to tell me that its implied that when you send a packet
using a email protocol its implied it will be logged but when you send a
message via the irc protocol there is an expectancy that it is not?

Mozilla uses inspircd which by default logs all user messages in and out
and on channels: <log method="file" type="* -USERINPUT -USEROUTPUT
-m_spanningtree" level="default" target="ircd.log">

As for it creating a hostile environment as others already pointed out a
good amount of channels are already logged and publicly archived so were
talking about just logging and archiving the remaining channels. No hostile
environment has so far existed in fact its been positive.

>
> Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional
> or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less
> willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or
> just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made
> public in this way.
>

Non-profits and public bodies in many countries are required by law to
record minutes of meetings many have full video and audio recording and yet
many people still attend them. Recording them and making it available
publicly has demonstrably increased access to these meetings.

>
> This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record
> people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as
> there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated
> and planned.
>

Are you saying people are more deliberate in how they communicate when
others might see what they say? Imagine that.... So people might be more
deliberate in following our participation guidelines too.

>
> As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In
> addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track
> the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on
> and off the channel.
>

Of any irc logging I have seen over many years quit and join messages have
never been part of any publicly archived logs:
http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23developers&s=23%20Jan%202015&e=23%20Jan%202015

>
> I feel like if you strongly want logs for a particular channel there are
> plenty of methods to do this on your own and that having them globally
> captures and then published is not serving the Community at large so much
> as a subset of the Community
>

Again most of the channels are already logged and archived mostly I think a
few people out of our thousands of contributors would be against this
proposal.

http://logs.glob.uno/

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote:

> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
> as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
> the channel owner and change that.
>

Right and my proposal is to have global policy including which channels
must be exempt due to sensitive discussions (I can think of a handful
myself) and then create a process for starting logging and opting out of
channel logging by a channel owner.

Really I think the channel owner and perhaps a module owner that fits into
that channels functional area should be the decision makers.

But having them hosted at something like irclogs.mozilla.org and searchable
versus glob hosting them all makes more sense imho.

At the end of the day thought I imagine unless someone disabled the default
logging on the ircd that Mozilla technically already globally logs all user
communications even though in private message. Whether they disabled it or
not I am unsure and how long those logs are retained I am unsure and who
has access I am unsure.

Default Inspircd config has all user input/output logged by default:
https://gitorious.org/inspircd/inspircd/source/911e33e3995509afa4cf3ea8fae0ddca2dad78dc:conf/inspircd.conf.example#L706

[Ravi Pina]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 05:10:07PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ravi Pina <ra...@cow.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?
> > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> >
> > I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is
> > private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly
> > logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging
> > is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from
> > independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is
> > logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile
> > environment.
> >
>
> Wait are you trying to tell me that its implied that when you send a packet
> using a email protocol its implied it will be logged but when you send a
> message via the irc protocol there is an expectancy that it is not?

When you send an email that transaction is logged on every mail relay and
then stored on the recipient's server. That is effectively what I am
equating to being logged. Further the user can then archive that message
indefinitely. This is also why I felt the private status of a mailing list
and IRC was not the best comparison.

> Mozilla uses inspircd which by default logs all user messages in and out
> and on channels: <log method="file" type="* -USERINPUT -USEROUTPUT
> -m_spanningtree" level="default" target="ircd.log">
>
> As for it creating a hostile environment as others already pointed out a
> good amount of channels are already logged and publicly archived so were
> talking about just logging and archiving the remaining channels. No hostile
> environment has so far existed in fact its been positive.

Then why not leave it at those channels and bring up logging to the owners
of channels you're particularly interested in vs. making it a global policy?

> >
> > Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional
> > or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less
> > willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or
> > just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made
> > public in this way.
> >
>
> Non-profits and public bodies in many countries are required by law to
> record minutes of meetings many have full video and audio recording and yet
> many people still attend them. Recording them and making it available
> publicly has demonstrably increased access to these meetings.

I don't feel that IRC as used this way does not meet any of this criteria.

> >
> > This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record
> > people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as
> > there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated
> > and planned.
> >
>
> Are you saying people are more deliberate in how they communicate when
> others might see what they say? Imagine that.... So people might be more
> deliberate in following our participation guidelines too.

That is exactly what I am saying, and it reads to me that you want to use
logging as a means of enforcing participation guidelines and I don't agree
with that means. If you have concerns or issues with members not following
participation guidelines perhaps trying to resolve them directly rather
than trying to achieve it under cloak of global logging is a better way.

> > As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In
> > addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track
> > the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on
> > and off the channel.
> >
>
> Of any irc logging I have seen over many years quit and join messages have
> never been part of any publicly archived logs:
> http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23developers&s=23%20Jan%202015&e=23%20Jan%202015
>
>
> >
> > I feel like if you strongly want logs for a particular channel there are
> > plenty of methods to do this on your own and that having them globally
> > captures and then published is not serving the Community at large so much
> > as a subset of the Community
> >
>
> Again most of the channels are already logged and archived mostly I think a
> few people out of our thousands of contributors would be against this
> proposal.
>
> http://logs.glob.uno/

As I mentioned above then why was this even brought up? If many are already
logged then great. If there are other channels you'd like logged then seek
the channel's owner and submit it for consideration. If there are ulterior
motives then please be more direct.

-r

[Yvan Boily]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Ravi Pina <ra...@cow.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?
>> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>>
>> I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is
>> private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly
>> logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging
>> is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from
>> independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is
>> logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile
>> environment.
>>
>
> Wait are you trying to tell me that its implied that when you send a
> packet using a email protocol its implied it will be logged but when you
> send a message via the irc protocol there is an expectancy that it is not?
>

> Mozilla uses inspircd which by default logs all user messages in and out
> and on channels: <log method="file" type="* -USERINPUT -USEROUTPUT
> -m_spanningtree" level="default" target="ircd.log">
>
> As for it creating a hostile environment as others already pointed out a
> good amount of channels are already logged and publicly archived so were
> talking about just logging and archiving the remaining channels. No hostile
> environment has so far existed in fact its been positive.
>

If the needs are being met by the community, does it make sense to burden
Mozilla with a service for which it bears liability under US regulation?

>
>
>>
>> Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional
>> or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less
>> willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or
>> just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made
>> public in this way.
>>
>
> Non-profits and public bodies in many countries are required by law to
> record minutes of meetings many have full video and audio recording and yet
> many people still attend them. Recording them and making it available
> publicly has demonstrably increased access to these meetings.
>

Yes. But these are a different media. Extending your argument, we should
have streaming media that allows anyone to listen to any conversation
because it would increase access.

>
>
>>
>> This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record
>> people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as
>> there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated
>> and planned.
>>
>
> Are you saying people are more deliberate in how they communicate when
> others might see what they say? Imagine that.... So people might be more
> deliberate in following our participation guidelines too.
>

No, others are more deliberate about their communications if they know
their comments will be recorded for posterity. Do you think I wanted this
casual comment <http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/6667> recorded for
posterity? Is there value (beyond the fact that someone found it funny)
that it should have been recorded and included as part of Mozilla's public
record?

What about (again) the frequent abuse from folks who disagree with policy
decisions (or misunderstand circumstances) and come onto the irc network to
spout hate or insult people. Does it make sense to archive that? Without
a ministry of truth style group that edits and curates the logs, it is hard
to control *what* gets logged and republished. What about the potential PR
or legal liability if Mozilla publishes links to pirated or illegal content
inadvertently?

>
>
>>
>> As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In
>> addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track
>> the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on
>> and off the channel.
>>
>
>

> http://logs.glob.uno/?c=mozilla%23developers&s=23%20Jan%202015&e=23%20Jan%202015Of

> any irc logging I have seen over many years quit and join messages have
> never been part of any publicly archived logs:
>

I am less concerned about that than I am about people who share information
in the actual content of their messages.

>
>> I feel like if you strongly want logs for a particular channel there are
>> plenty of methods to do this on your own and that having them globally
>> captures and then published is not serving the Community at large so much
>> as a subset of the Community
>>
>
> Again most of the channels are already logged and archived mostly I think
> a few people out of our thousands of contributors would be against this
> proposal.
>
> http://logs.glob.uno/
>

Again, the community (even if glob is staff) has met this need. I don't
think it makes sense for Mozilla to formalize this as a policy.

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2015-01-23 17:08 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
> as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
> the channel owner and change that.

As a channel owner, who do I ask to change that? Or am I supposed
to set up my own server? Or rely on some other member of the
community whose server might go away at any time?

[Erik Rose]

I like logging but not so I can point at someone and shout "Gotcha!" Rather, I've set up logging on project-related channels mostly as a source of free documentation, via web search: we'd just stick the text files on a web server and let Google pick them up. The members of the channel loved it.

To keep the chilling effects down, we had a "no-log" prefix people could start their messages with to opt out of the log. We used the rather verbose but self-explanatory "[nolog]", but it could be as simple as a leading period:

Sally: I think it should 25.
Fred: .Ugh, if I have to use that framework again, I'll scream.
Fred: 25 sounds good.

Erik

[Yvan Boily]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote:
>
>> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
>> need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
>> logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
>> the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
>> as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
>> the channel owner and change that.
>>
>

> Right and my proposal is to have global policy including which channels
> must be exempt due to sensitive discussions (I can think of a handful
> myself) and then create a process for starting logging and opting out of
> channel logging by a channel owner.
>

Requiring channel owners to opt out of public logging to a Mozilla
resources on behalf of their users (imo) is not consistent with the
published data privacy principles
<https://blog.mozilla.org/privacy/2014/11/11/mozillas-data-privacy-principles-revisited/>.
Not the least of which is the No Suprises - many users would be surprised
to learn that after years of telling users "we don't log irc", we start
logging it and publishing it.

I understand that users cannot control data that may be collected and
republished by individuals, but this discussion isn't about what *others*
are doing with data, it's about what Mozilla is doing with data.

> But having them hosted at something like irclogs.mozilla.org and
> searchable versus glob hosting them all makes more sense imho.
>
> At the end of the day thought I imagine unless someone disabled the
> default logging on the ircd that Mozilla technically already globally logs
> all user communications even though in private message. Whether they
> disabled it or not I am unsure and how long those logs are retained I am
> unsure and who has access I am unsure.
>
> Default Inspircd config has all user input/output logged by default:
>
> https://gitorious.org/inspircd/inspircd/source/911e33e3995509afa4cf3ea8fae0ddca2dad78dc:conf/inspircd.conf.example#L706
>
>

It is my understanding that we retain only enough logs to satisfy
operational needs, although I can inquire with operations team if you would
like.

[David Ascher]

>From a communication systems design point of view (using the psychological
definitions and not technical definitions of those words), what's important
in these choices is that the privacy expectations of the people using a
medium are not violated. If people expect a communication to be private or
restricted to people-known-to-be-in-channel, then they are more likely to
say things that they only want those people to know. If people know and/or
understand as they enter a communication channel that it will be published,
spiderable, and _read_ by others, they will adjust their behavior
accordingly. In particular, they may move their more private
communications somewhere more private.

IRC has traditionally had both kinds of channels. Each channel has had the
ability to do logging, even if not all channel communities necessarily knew
that. I at least think there's value in both kinds of channels. I'd
encourage "work" channels (as in places where decisions are good to
document, refer back etc.) to have a discussion as to whether they want to
enable logging & search etc. I'd personally vote against logging in
watercooler channels. Inappropriate behavior needs to be acted upon as it
happens, by people who witness it.

Regardless, it's important that if a privacy change is to happen, users get
appropriate notice, and, I argue, that community members (and in many ways
frequent-channel-users are members of that very specific community) get a
say.

--da

[Kyle Huey]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:43 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello All,
>

> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
> and accountability but also to ensure compliance

> with our participation guidelines? I know some channels have decided to
> public log on their own starting this year
> but we do not have an across the board policy.
>
> Obviously some channels where sensitive topics are discussed would need to
> be exempt but what about
> the rest of the channels?
>
> Projects like the Ubuntu Project already do this for the same reasons as
> above:
> http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/ (Every channel related to the project since
> 2004)

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

What is the actual problem you are trying to solve here?

- Kyle

[Benjamin Kerensa]

That blog post was written within the scope of our products and end users
not our project, tools or contributors.

[Gavin Sharp]

You can ask glob to add logbot to it (http://logs.glob.uno/). It can "go
away at any time", sure, but that doesn't seem like a big deal in practice.

Gavin

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:29 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Friday 2015-01-23 17:08 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> > need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> > logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> > the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
> > as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
> > the channel owner and change that.
>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

The lack of being able to refer back to conversations had when personal
logs become unavailable but the conversation is important. We do not
currently use wiki widely to document conversations had on IRC and frankly
important decisions and conversations are had on IRC on a daily basis.

I also for that matter believe having an archive so our users, partners and
anyone can observe important decisions or discussions had adds
transparency.

The fact is as much as we would like for all of our important discussions
to happen in mailing list or on a recorded Vidyo call it just is not
practical.

[Kyle Huey]

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@gmail.com>

So what is this subtext about "compliance"?

- Kyle

[Gavin Sharp]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
wrote:

> Right and my proposal is to have global policy including which channels
> must be exempt due to sensitive discussions (I can think of a handful
> myself) and then create a process for starting logging and opting out of
> channel logging by a channel owner.
>

I see lots of value in logging channels publicly, but that kind of policy
seems unnecessary (most channels are already logged publicly) and overly
complicated to implement.

Gavin

[Yvan Boily]

No, the scope is clearly stated with "Mozilla’s Data Privacy Principles
continue to inform how we build our products and services, manage user
data, and select and interact with partners – while shaping our public
policy and advocacy work.", from the blog post.

IRC logs *are* user data. irc.mozilla.org *is* a Mozilla service. Both
are subject to Mozilla policies.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>

>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <
>> bker...@mozillausa.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>

>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com>

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
>>>> need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
>>>> logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
>>>> the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
>>>> as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
>>>> the channel owner and change that.
>>>>
>>>

>>> Right and my proposal is to have global policy including which channels
>>> must be exempt due to sensitive discussions (I can think of a handful
>>> myself) and then create a process for starting logging and opting out of
>>> channel logging by a channel owner.
>>>
>>

[Benjamin Kerensa]

It can be if we want to achieve the goal of having a central place the
project and users and downstream partners can refer back to. Community
hosted things are not a guaranteed thing while MoCo hosted infra has a
better chance of longevity.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote:

> You can ask glob to add logbot to it (http://logs.glob.uno/). It can "go
> away at any time", sure, but that doesn't seem like a big deal in practice.
>
> Gavin
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:29 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
>

> > On Friday 2015-01-23 17:08 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > > I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> > > need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> > > logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> > > the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
> > > as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
> > > the channel owner and change that.
> >

> > As a channel owner, who do I ask to change that? Or am I supposed
> > to set up my own server? Or rely on some other member of the
> > community whose server might go away at any time?
> >
> > -David
> >
> > --
> > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
> > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
> > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> > What I was walling in or walling out,
> > And to whom I was like to give offense.
> > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> >

> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> gover...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>

--
Benjamin Kerensa
Mozilla Rep
http://mozillausa.org

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> No, the scope is clearly stated with "Mozilla’s Data Privacy Principles
> continue to inform how we build our products and services, manage user
> data, and select and interact with partners – while shaping our public
> policy and advocacy work.", from the blog post.
>
> IRC logs *are* user data. irc.mozilla.org *is* a Mozilla service. Both
> are subject to Mozilla policies.
>

Either way I do not think logging irc conflicts with any of those
principles especially if a policy is in place and documented.

Also FWIW I can think of entire sites we have for contributors that do not
meet those data privacy principles so I really doubt they had contributors
in mind writing that.

[Yvan Boily]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> No, the scope is clearly stated with "Mozilla’s Data Privacy Principles
>> continue to inform how we build our products and services, manage user
>> data, and select and interact with partners – while shaping our public
>> policy and advocacy work.", from the blog post.
>>
>> IRC logs *are* user data. irc.mozilla.org *is* a Mozilla service. Both
>> are subject to Mozilla policies.
>>
>
> Either way I do not think logging irc conflicts with any of those
> principles especially if a policy is in place and documented.
>

*NO SURPRISES*
Changing to opt-out logging on a per-channel basis is a shift away from the
advertised state of logging in relation it irc.mozilla.org as published here
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/IRC>. That would be a surprise for most people.

*USER CONTROL*

Providing opt-in logging at a channel owner level would be better, as long
as the channel makes it clear by sending a notice to the user when they
join that it is publicly logged.

*LIMITED DATA*
Hard to comply with this one; when we have numerous other sources of truth
for technical work (repos, wiki, mdn, mailing lists), I would argue that we
don't need to retain this data, but in the case that we do, I would think
that at the least, anonymizing it is a requirement to uphold this part. It
is notoriously hard to properly anonymize communications, especially chat
based communications where usernames could be common subjects of
discussion.

*SENSIBLE SETTINGS*
I think that defaulting to not logging is a more sensible setting
considering the legacy of "We don't log" on the service.

*DEFENSE IN DEPTH*

I don't think this necessarily applies to the case at hand.

> Also FWIW I can think of entire sites we have for contributors that do not
> meet those data privacy principles so I really doubt they had contributors
> in mind writing that.
>

> In the context of this discussion, other sites failing to adhere to policy
is not terribly relevant, but please send me a list of the sites you think
don't meet those requirements off list and I will follow up.

[L. David Baron]

On Friday 2015-01-23 14:14 -0800, L. David Baron wrote:
> On Friday 2015-01-23 12:43 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:

> > What does everyone think about logging irc channels
>

> I support logging public channels. I think it will make
> participation easier and help communication, both across time zones
> and for those new to the project (who can learn what was said on IRC
> a year before).

I should perhaps explain a little bit more why I think this:

On the Platform team, we're making decisions every day that affect
how the Web works. The Web is a technology system that is used by a
significant portion of the world's population.

Many of these decisions are irrevocable, because the Web depends on
compatibility.

I think we owe it to the people (present and future) who use the
technology we're building to record and publish at least what is
easy to record, publish, and archive without much cost to us, so
that they can understand why we made the decisions we made.

I think if we can do this without adding overhead and unreliability
(e.g., "if it's important, copy and paste it into a bug"), we
should.

I realize this rationale doesn't necessarily apply to all of
Mozilla, but I'd at least like to see archived logs for all the
major public channels related to the technology that we put in the
Web platform.

[fantasai]

On 01/23/2015 08:31 PM, Erik Rose wrote:> I like logging but not so I can point at someone and shout "Gotcha!" Rather, I've

set up logging on project-related channels mostly as a source of free documentation, via web search: we'd just stick the text
files on a web server and let Google pick them up. The members of the channel loved it.
>
> To keep the chilling effects down, we had a "no-log" prefix people could start their messages with to opt out of the log. We used the rather verbose but self-explanatory "[nolog]", but it could be as simple as a leading period:
>
> Sally: I think it should 25.
> Fred: .Ugh, if I have to use that framework again, I'll scream.
> Fred: 25 sounds good.

While that's handy, on a large project like this there's likely
multiple people logging the channel, and they probably don't all
agree on the conventions. :)

In the CSSWG channel, for example, we have 3 different logbots: one
from W3C (which uses /me to hide messages), one set up by Krijn,
and one set up by plinss on csswg.org. The latter two log all
messages.

So I think it'd be misleading to have such a capability in the
Mozilla channels, at least the larger ones. (Maybe in the smaller
ones it's easier to enforce that there's only one logbot that
follows X convention.)

~fantasai

[fantasai]

On 01/23/2015 07:52 PM, Ravi Pina wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 04:34:16PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>> Can I ask if you think mailing lists should be private?
>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>
> I don't feel this is a fair comparison and whether a mailing list is
> private or not is irrelevant. The communications are implicitly
> logged because of the nature how the messages are sent. For IRC logging
> is not implied. While there is nothing to prevent someone from
> independently logging conversations, the notion that all activity is
> logged and archived for public consumption potentially creates a hostile
> environment.

I have always privately logged the channels I participate in, and
I'm 100% sure many other people do the same. I don't know why you
think IRC implies no logs.

Email is archived by default privately. When it is publicly archived,
then, yes, it should be clear. Most people (outside open source) don't
associate email with public archives.

So I think this comparison is 100% fair.

> Consider the implications if someone were to record a meeting professional
> or not. The mere presence of the recording will perhaps cause those less
> willing to speak to not speak at all. Perhaps they are self conscious or
> just fundamentally prefer to be able to choose when their words are made
> public in this way.

This was one of the fears that were cited when the CSSWG was discussing
opening up its technical discussions to the public mailing list, and then
later, when we were discussing opening up our private meeting minutes
(which are pretty thorough--they tend to read as a transcript of the
meeting) to the public archive.

In both cases we went forward and the fears went away--to the point that
representatives of the companies hesitant to go public with the discussions
would complain when people used private channels for their discussion.
And in both cases participation increased.

We occasionally have discussion off the record. But that's ended up being
maybe once every two years, and usually something administrative.

> This happens with the press all the time. When things are off the record
> people are more willing to talk and be open and honest, but as soon as
> there is a recorder and things go on the record statements are calculated
> and planned.

The press is full of politics. What and how you represent yourself and
your opinions and beliefs matters. But that's less true here, since our
focus is the project and the work that goes on in it.

> As Yvan pointed out as well there is a notion of PII to consider. In
> addition to the usernames and messages themselves, logging will track
> the IDENT username and hostname and timestamps of when a user signs on
> and off the channel.

There's no need to log this information and make it public; in fact it
would be annoying, since it distracts from the conversation.

~fantasai

[fantasai]

On 01/23/2015 09:38 PM, Yvan Boily wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IRC logs *are* user data. irc.mozilla.org *is* a Mozilla service. Both
>>> are subject to Mozilla policies.
>>
>> Either way I do not think logging irc conflicts with any of those
>> principles especially if a policy is in place and documented.
>
> *NO SURPRISES*
> Changing to opt-out logging on a per-channel basis is a shift away from the
> advertised state of logging in relation it irc.mozilla.org as published here
> <https://wiki.mozilla.org/IRC>. That would be a surprise for most people.

The wiki can be updated. And in any case, I'd recommend the chat logs
be linked to in the /topic, e.g.

/topic Logged at <url>

This is what we do in the #csswg channel. It both notifies the participants
that they're being logged and also gives them a link in case they want to
refer something outside the channel.

> *USER CONTROL*
>
> Providing opt-in logging at a channel owner level would be better, as long
> as the channel makes it clear by sending a notice to the user when they
> join that it is publicly logged.

For the channels that have owners, then, sure, those owners should
do the logging setup for their channel. I'm not sure that #developers,
for example, has an owner, though. I would think that's why we're
discussing it here.

As for notice, I think /topic is enough.

> *LIMITED DATA*
> Hard to comply with this one; when we have numerous other sources of truth
> for technical work (repos, wiki, mdn, mailing lists), I would argue that we
> don't need to retain this data, but in the case that we do, I would think
> that at the least, anonymizing it is a requirement to uphold this part. It
> is notoriously hard to properly anonymize communications, especially chat
> based communications where usernames could be common subjects of
> discussion.

Anonymizing chat logs is silly and not helpful. If bz says something,
for example, I'm much more likely to take it seriously. So I'd want
to know if it's bz that's talking. :) Also conversations in which
bz, roc, or dholbert participate are more likely to be relevant to
me, so I'm interested to know when they're talking. Besides which
anonymizing chat logs is about as reasonable as anonymizing all the
emails sent to a mailing list.

> *SENSIBLE SETTINGS*
> I think that defaulting to not logging is a more sensible setting
> considering the legacy of "We don't log" on the service.

I think not logging would indeed be the default, but going forward
here would mean all the major channels would get logged. So it
would not be the common case even though it's the default.

~fantaai

[Chris Ilias]

On 2015-01-23 3:43 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> What does everyone think about logging irc channels for both transparency
> and accountability but also to ensure compliance
> with our participation guidelines?

As a volunteer and long time contributor, this is something I've wanted
for a very long time. There have been too many instances of people
referencing IRC discussions, or even worse, decisions made on IRC.
That's why I've always tried to encourage people to save important
discussions for forums (or bugs when appropriate).

[Trevor Saunders]

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 05:51:01PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> It can be if we want to achieve the goal of having a central place the
> project and users and downstream partners can refer back to. Community

logs.glob.uno is the central place, so no that's not a problem.

> hosted things are not a guaranteed thing while MoCo hosted infra has a
> better chance of longevity.

imho there's nothing special about moco, its just a very large comunity
member. That said if you really want logs stored on a moco server you
only need to convince moco to pay to copy the logs from logbot you don't
need a policy.

Trev

>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Gavin Sharp <ga...@gavinsharp.com> wrote:
>
> > You can ask glob to add logbot to it (http://logs.glob.uno/). It can "go
> > away at any time", sure, but that doesn't seem like a big deal in practice.
> >
> > Gavin
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:29 PM, L. David Baron <dba...@dbaron.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday 2015-01-23 17:08 -0800, Gavin Sharp wrote:
> > > > I should perhaps clarify, though, that I don't really think there's a
> > > > need for a project-wide policy to enforce that channels must be
> > > > logged, and that's probably what Yvan is reacting strongly to. Most of
> > > > the important public IRC channels are already being publicly logged,
> > > > as mentioned, and where they aren't it's easy enough to reach out to
> > > > the channel owner and change that.
> > >
> > > As a channel owner, who do I ask to change that? Or am I supposed
> > > to set up my own server? Or rely on some other member of the
> > > community whose server might go away at any time?
> > >

> > > -David
> > >
> > > --
> > > 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂
> > > 𝄢 Mozilla https://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
> > > Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
> > > What I was walling in or walling out,
> > > And to whom I was like to give offense.
> > > - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)
> > >

[Majken Connor]

I skimmed, so forgiveness please in advance if I am repeating points
already made...

This isn't to say that I am opposed to having public logs of *project*
channels, but I see two problems that I think should be addressed:

1. Trying to keep up with a project by reading IRC logs (or watching
meeting videos) is a lot to ask for many people. This takes a lot of time
and someone could end up spending all their day reading logs and watching
videos to stay informed. We need to make sure that sharing the logs
addresses the case of people who hang out regularly and just want to catch
what they missed. We need to make sure that teams do *not* say "if you want
to follow us, read the logs."

2. When there is a channel list, it is easy for you to think that this list
of people is your audience. I've noticed the same thing when streaming a
meeting over vidyo to an audience. You forget that the participants you
can't see are there. Logging to share with other people who generally hang
out in a channel is one thing. Publicly logging is another. It could be
very easy for someone to use the logs to "quote" a "Mozilla developer."
Humans behave differently depending on their audience, even if we make a
policy that logs will be public, this hidden audience member will be
forgotten until something gets publicly taken out of context.

Mozilla has a dearth of good note takers, in terms of solving transparency
I would be more in favor of trying to solve that problem, not using public
logs to solve it. I am in favor of having logs accessible for Mozillians to
solve the problem of people who do follow the team missing conversations
when they're disconnected.

On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Trevor Saunders <tbsa...@tbsaunde.org>
wrote:

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I skimmed, so forgiveness please in advance if I am repeating points already
> made...
>
> This isn't to say that I am opposed to having public logs of *project*
> channels, but I see two problems that I think should be addressed:
>
> 1. Trying to keep up with a project by reading IRC logs (or watching meeting
> videos) is a lot to ask for many people. This takes a lot of time and
> someone could end up spending all their day reading logs and watching videos
> to stay informed. We need to make sure that sharing the logs addresses the
> case of people who hang out regularly and just want to catch what they
> missed. We need to make sure that teams do *not* say "if you want to follow
> us, read the logs."

I do not think that's a fair request. Ultimately, if someone is
interested in knowing what a team is doing, they should spend however
much time they feel is necessary for them to be kept abreast of a
team. Whether that be following a team blog, subscribing to a mailing
list, watching Air Mo, following a wiki page or perusing logs.


Teams do not have time to break down what they are doing for every
contributor that approaches. As others have pointed out, this is not
just about contributors or the project seeing the log but also
upstream and downstream open source projects and partners and users. A
lot of really important decisions that impact the entire web are made
over IRC.

>
> 2. When there is a channel list, it is easy for you to think that this list
> of people is your audience. I've noticed the same thing when streaming a
> meeting over vidyo to an audience. You forget that the participants you
> can't see are there. Logging to share with other people who generally hang
> out in a channel is one thing. Publicly logging is another. It could be very
> easy for someone to use the logs to "quote" a "Mozilla developer." Humans
> behave differently depending on their audience, even if we make a policy
> that logs will be public, this hidden audience member will be forgotten
> until something gets publicly taken out of context.

That is not a problem unique to having IRC logs nor do I think it
would be aggravated by having public IRC logs. Just at our all hands
alone, the media took a number of Mozillians tweets and ran to press
with it. In the past the media regularly quotes "a Mozilla Developer"
by taking info from personal blogs. This is the nature of the game in
open source; that being writers will run with anything they can from
any source they can. We shouldn't not be more open where we can just
to make sure the media doesn't take things out of context.

FWIW, we have an entire team of paid PR professionals whose job is to
send corrections to the media.

>
> Mozilla has a dearth of good note takers, in terms of solving transparency I
> would be more in favor of trying to solve that problem, not using public
> logs to solve it. I am in favor of having logs accessible for Mozillians to
> solve the problem of people who do follow the team missing conversations
> when they're disconnected.

There is no other way to be more transparent about what we do on IRC
and what decisions we make as a project for our products and what
decisions we make that impact the entire web without opening things
up. Open by default is hard but it should always be how we operate and
opening up IRC logs would be consistent with our manifesto FWIW. As it
stands right now there are huge amounts of decisions being made on a
regular basis that even Mozillians paid or non-paid do not know happen
and do not have the ability to be aware of because IRC is one of our
modes of communication and we choose for it to be only available to
those who are there to catch a conversation or those who persistently
stay connected and log privately.

[Benjamin Kerensa]

Also I will leave this here:

6 reasons people do not want to work in the open -
http://opensource.com/business/14/10/why-work-open

Notice this is a employee of Red Hat (a for profit corporation with
share holders and values much different then ours) calling for
discussions to be in
public irc channels by default and recorded by default.

[Chris Ilias]

On 2015-01-25 1:31 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
> 1. Trying to keep up with a project by reading IRC logs (or watching
> meeting videos) is a lot to ask for many people. This takes a lot of time
> and someone could end up spending all their day reading logs and watching
> videos to stay informed. We need to make sure that sharing the logs
> addresses the case of people who hang out regularly and just want to catch
> what they missed. We need to make sure that teams do *not* say "if you want
> to follow us, read the logs."

<snip>

>
> Mozilla has a dearth of good note takers, in terms of solving transparency
> I would be more in favor of trying to solve that problem, not using public
> logs to solve it. I am in favor of having logs accessible for Mozillians to
> solve the problem of people who do follow the team missing conversations
> when they're disconnected.

The same discussion came up on sumo, and I think the same argument I
made there also applies here. By making the raw data public, any
volunteer who wasn't there to take notes can read the logs and create
good notes.

I think that solves both problems above. It's also a great example of
how being public enables more people to contribute.

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-01-25 1:31 PM, Majken Connor wrote:
>>

>> 1. Trying to keep up with a project by reading IRC logs (or watching
>> meeting videos) is a lot to ask for many people. This takes a lot of time
>> and someone could end up spending all their day reading logs and watching
>> videos to stay informed. We need to make sure that sharing the logs
>> addresses the case of people who hang out regularly and just want to catch
>> what they missed. We need to make sure that teams do *not* say "if you
>> want
>> to follow us, read the logs."
>

> <snip>

>>
>>
>> Mozilla has a dearth of good note takers, in terms of solving transparency
>> I would be more in favor of trying to solve that problem, not using public
>> logs to solve it. I am in favor of having logs accessible for Mozillians
>> to
>> solve the problem of people who do follow the team missing conversations
>> when they're disconnected.
>
>
>

> The same discussion came up on sumo, and I think the same argument I made
> there also applies here. By making the raw data public, any volunteer who
> wasn't there to take notes can read the logs and create good notes.
>
> I think that solves both problems above. It's also a great example of how
> being public enables more people to contribute.

Also...

"The posting of the chat logs, email discussions,
and summary digests on a public Web site embody the
spirit of the free software movement and serve as a point
of entry, exposure, and enculturation for both new and
experienced open source software developers." - University of
California, Communicating and Mitigating Conflict in Open Source
Software Development Projects (http://www.ics.uci.edu/~melliott/commossd.pdf)

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-01-25 3:52 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Ultimately, if someone is interested in knowing what a team is doing,
> they should spend however much time they feel is necessary for them to
> be kept abreast of a team. Whether that be following a team blog,
> subscribing to a mailing list, watching Air Mo, following a wiki page
> or perusing logs.

For what it's worth, I think that we're conflating a bunch of only
slightly related things here.

As for whether or not IRC conversations _should_ be logged, or those
logs be posted on a public server? That ship has long sailed, and that
seems OK to me. That sounds like the way we should be working, and I
think that it's unreasonable to expect that these things _aren't_ going
to get logged.

Far as I can tell the question is: should that process be a formally
recognized - meaning internally-hosted & org-supported - practice? I
think that for many IRC channels, if not all, this is a good idea.

Being able to have static links to previous IRC interactions (for
Bugzilla, future discussion, whatever) so we can say things like "per
this IRC conversation [link] we've learned this thing", seems like
reasonable time saver and a low-cost practice that's in line with our
values. Some details to work out there, like making this explicit per
archived channel and pruning spam, etc.

This shouldn't be terribly difficult to set up, but I say that because I
wouldn't be the person actually doing the work.

I've filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125827 to that
effect.


- mhoye

[Larissa Shapiro]

Having read the entire discussion, Mike’s proposal seems most up to date to me and I support it. I definitely would like to have static links and to have public channels logged, I would also like bots to notify people when they join a public channel that it is being logged. I think that’s already happening in some places.

On a side note, if there are issues with contributor sites and tools not following privacy guidelines I would suggest a discussion with someone in community tools. I can help direct people there if needed.

Larissa

[Fred Wenzel]

I'll keep it short, not to beat a dead horse:

I'm with the people having concerns about general public archiving of
all/most IRC channels because it takes semi-public chatter into the
indefinitely-archived-and-googleable world, which effectively kills
the medium as a watercooler equivalent (or, at any rate, *chills* it,
as Ravi Pina brought up previously).

I do, however, recognize, that some channels could effectively work as
(and are intended as) completely public spaces and lend themselves to
be archived and searchable.

I'd request that these channels be:
a) opt-in by owner (no default archiving and publishing)
b) clearly identifiable as such, both when joining and for the people
who have been connected for a long time

If we do end up settling on publishing-by-default, then I think an
opt-out procedure is vital. I would make use of that procedure for my
team channel for instance, which is intended as a semi-public,
ephemeral discussion medium.

~F

[Patrick Cloke]

On 1/26/2015 12:48 PM, Larissa Shapiro wrote:
>I would also like bots to notify people when they join a public channel
>that it is being logged. I think that’s already happening in some places.

Please don't do this. There's already too many bots that send information to users that they're really not interested in. I'd suggest putting this in some well documented places (the wiki and MotD, for instance), also including a link in the topic seems prudent and would imply the logs are publicly available. A bot IMing me each time I join a logged channel seems like overkill (and will just piss people off).

--Patrick

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Patrick Cloke <clo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/2015 12:48 PM, Larissa Shapiro wrote:
>>

>> I would also like bots to notify people when they join a public channel
>> that it is being logged. I think that’s already happening in some places.
>
>

> Please don't do this. There's already too many bots that send information to
> users that they're really not interested in. I'd suggest putting this in
> some well documented places (the wiki and MotD, for instance), also
> including a link in the topic seems prudent and would imply the logs are
> publicly available. A bot IMing me each time I join a logged channel seems
> like overkill (and will just piss people off).

+1 on will just piss people off

[mer...@mozilla.com]

Jumping on this late...

Putting aside the question of what logging is currently occurring, we want to ensure that any logging that could occur as a matter of policy - and any data collection, retention, and sharing generally - satisfies a specific, material need and is limited to what is required to satisfy that need.

With that as context, it seems a number of you have identified legitimate benefits here but, by my read of this thread, I don't see that the justifications are sufficient to motivate any change.

Marshall

[Benjamin Kerensa]

The justification is that we are doing it wrong by defaulting to
closed decision making where not everyone can transparently see all
the discussions we have in the project.

Great post that talks about this discussion btw and the importance of open:
http://stormyscorner.com/2015/01/working-in-the-open-is-hard.html

Simply put we have a commitment to our users, partners, contributors
and staff to stay true to our principles (see 7 and 8) and in the
spirit of transparency and building free software taking this step is
totally inline with those principles.

I think the question we really need to ask is where else are we not
defaulting to open and how can we change that and be more true to our
manifesto?

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-01-26 10:30 PM, mer...@mozilla.com wrote:
> Jumping on this late...
>
> Putting aside the question of what logging is currently occurring, we want to ensure that any logging that could occur as a matter of policy - and any data collection, retention, and sharing generally - satisfies a specific, material need and is limited to what is required to satisfy that need.

I don't think I understand your position; your argument is that Mozilla
should only share information to satisfy a "specific material need", and
only share so much as to meet that need?


- mhoye

[Nikos Roussos]

On 01/27/2015 05:55 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> The justification is that we are doing it wrong by defaulting to
> closed decision making where not everyone can transparently see all
> the discussions we have in the project.
>
> Great post that talks about this discussion btw and the importance of open:
> http://stormyscorner.com/2015/01/working-in-the-open-is-hard.html

+1 to Ben's proposal. We should default to open, unless there is a
significant reason not to. Same thing we do with mailing lists. If we
have IRC channels that seem to host more personal discussions (I'm not
aware of any), we could exclude them.

We know that many people already log IRC Channels privately and anyway
IRC technically has many more serious privacy issues already (eg. IP
exposure). I don't want to maintain my own bouncer to log, so it would
be great if I could browse logs from the channels I'm interested in and
can't be 24h online.

~nikos

[Patrick Cloke]

On 1/27/2015 6:29 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> On 01/27/2015 05:55 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> The justification is that we are doing it wrong by defaulting to
>> closed decision making where not everyone can transparently see all
>> the discussions we have in the project.
>>
>> Great post that talks about this discussion btw and the importance of open:
>> http://stormyscorner.com/2015/01/working-in-the-open-is-hard.html
>
> +1 to Ben's proposal. We should default to open, unless there is a
> significant reason not to. Same thing we do with mailing lists. If we
> have IRC channels that seem to host more personal discussions (I'm not
> aware of any), we could exclude them.

I know of IRC channels that are used for personal discussion. Sometimes they're ethereal to discuss a situation occurring in another channel, some are more permanent. Some channels I'm in to do this are password protected (and I assume wouldn't be logged as they're certainly "private"), while others are "public", but we don't advertise it. *

From (kind of) following this thread it seems that the argument really boils down to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out. (Not whether we should do it at all or not.) It seems most people believe it is useful information to have. I can personally attest that it is nice to be able to go back and find a conversation and have a permanent link to it. We've been doing it for years in #instantbird.

--Patrick

* As an aside, I don't think the answer is "OMG You shouldn't be having private discussions"! I actually view it as a very good thing to have more personal discussions. There are people I spend *hours* a day talking to on IRC (some of which I've never met), yet...it's natural that some conversations tend to become more personal as you get to know people. It's nice to not:
1. Gum up the channels we do consider public.
2. Be able to have deeper conversations that we might not want made public.
3. Can have a limited, trusted audience.

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-01-27 12:59 PM, Patrick Cloke wrote:
>
> From (kind of) following this thread it seems that the argument really
> boils down to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out.

I'd intended this request to be only for product- and project-related
channels, and even then to be opt-in.

Blanket opt-out enrollment in anything doesn't really sound like us.

- mhoye

[Patrick Cloke]

Mike,

And that's how I took it, but it seems that it was taken to mean "Let's log everything on IRC" or (slightly less strong) "Let's log all channels". Opt-in logging essentially matches what we have now.

--Patrick

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Mike Hoye <mh...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 2015-01-27 12:59 PM, Patrick Cloke wrote:
>>
>>
>> From (kind of) following this thread it seems that the argument really
>> boils down to whether it should be opt-in or opt-out.
>
> I'd intended this request to be only for product- and project-related
> channels, and even then to be opt-in.
>
> Blanket opt-out enrollment in anything doesn't really sound like us.
>
> - mhoye

Opting-in is not defaulting to open for what it is worth it is making
open optional. And we actually do opt-in quite frequently there are
features that collect data in Firefox that are on by default... Our
mailing lists archive by open by default and our bugs are open by
default.

[Mike Hoye]

Those are fair points, but we're talking about changing the (perceived)
behavior of an existing system, not establishing the standards of a new
one.

In that context I don't think it's fair - or good PR! - to impose that
change on participants, even if it it is to reinforce a standard we
expect of ourselves.

I would prefer to see a change like this preannounced, limited to
product- and project-related channels at first, and opt-in thereafter.


- mhoye

[Ehsan Akhgari]

On 2015-01-27 2:11 PM, Mike Hoye wrote:
> On 2015-01-27 1:51 PM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Mike Hoye <mh...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> I'd intended this request to be only for product- and project-related
>>> channels, and even then to be opt-in. Blanket opt-out enrollment in
>>> anything doesn't really sound like us. - mhoye
>> Opting-in is not defaulting to open for what it is worth it is making
>> open optional. And we actually do opt-in quite frequently there are
>> features that collect data in Firefox that are on by default... Our
>> mailing lists archive by open by default and our bugs are open by
>> default.
> Those are fair points, but we're talking about changing the (perceived)
> behavior of an existing system, not establishing the standards of a new
> one.

No, we are talking about codifying something in a policy.

The status quo is that IRC conversations can be logged, not just by
Mozilla but by anybody who is connected to the IRC network.

> In that context I don't think it's fair - or good PR! - to impose that
> change on participants, even if it it is to reinforce a standard we
> expect of ourselves.
>
> I would prefer to see a change like this preannounced, limited to
> product- and project-related channels at first, and opt-in thereafter.

I'm having a really hard time parsing most of the conversation here. It
seems that most people are under the false impression that IRC
conversations are private by default. That is not the case. Even in
password protected channels, a lot of IRC clients (mine included for
example) log the conversations happening when they are connected to the
network.

[L. David Baron]

On Tuesday 2015-01-27 13:40 -0500, Patrick Cloke wrote:
> And that's how I took it, but it seems that it was taken to mean "Let's log everything on IRC" or (slightly less strong) "Let's log all channels". Opt-in logging essentially matches what we have now.

I'd phrase it a little differently: Logging of public channels is
opt-in but also substantially more encouraged than it is today. We
should also strongly prefer having discussion that could lead to
decisions affecting others to happen on logged channels rather than
unlogged ones, absent reasons to the contrary.

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-01-27 2:17 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> I'm having a really hard time parsing most of the conversation here.
> It seems that most people are under the false impression that IRC
> conversations are private by default. That is not the case.

That a user's expectations are based on inaccurate information doesn't
change how the user feels when those expectations are violated.

My only point is that this is a privacy-related thing, so while in this
case the tech is easy - as you note, that work is already done! - let's
get the user-perception part right too.


- mhoye

[Majken Connor]

I am also for open by default, but I think that we also need to take human
behaviour into account, not just the technical possibilities. I think given
how Mozilla operates, publicly (not just for Mozillians) available logs
would be akin to streaming every conference room over vidyo by default.
This is possible and this would be incredibly transparent, and people miss
a *lot* of decision making and discussion from not being in the same room.
But, would people remember to change their behaviour to remember that they
constantly have an audience? Is this the kind of behaviour change we want?
Would people just move to a different venue to be able to talk before an
idea is ready for an audience? Would we just need to revisit this
conversation to demand logging of the new venues? Also, what do we do about
people who want a "safe place" to discuss something before sharing with an
audience? Do we push them out of the community?

You shouldn't have to follow an IRC channel to stay up to date on decision
making. I like the idea of being able to link to a relevant IRC
conversation in a bug or in an announcement to make this easier. I agree
that volunteers need to put some effort into participation, but spending
hours watching meeting videos and sifting through logs is a net waste of
time compared to taking good notes and announcing decisions. Having to sift
through logs to find the needle in a haystack is still a form of
obfuscation. How does someone know there is even something in the logs they
want to see? How do they figure out where that information is?

Again, I agree that project channels should be logged, I'm just saying that
practically speaking, I don't know that this actually does a lot to make us
effectively open. I don't think it helps people who aren't already
following those channels to better follow the team or get more involved,
and I think we need to think through the side-effects of a logged and
public policy for somewhere that people see as contained and informal
(whether consciously or sub-consciously).

Regarding the bots, you can set a bot to only send a message to the same
nick once, so I think that actually can be done properly. I was also on a
bug ages ago to update the message you get when you connect to the server
for the first time. This would also be a place to mention a privacy policy
(if that wasn't already the plan).

[Larissa Shapiro]

Majken,

This

> Regarding the bots, you can set a bot to only send a message to the same
> nick once, so I think that actually can be done properly. I was also on a
> bug ages ago to update the message you get when you connect to the server
> for the first time. This would also be a place to mention a privacy policy

is what I had in mind, yes.

Also, your point about open by default but overwhelmingly vast communication overload vs actually *understandable* organizational transparency are well taken by me. Having things like project meetings and good status reports and notes on the wiki is more important. That said, having the project channels be default-open and a sensible notification policy about that just seems prudent and mission-appropriate to me.

Larissa

> On Jan 27, 2015, at 13:52, Majken Connor <maj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not
currently being publicly logged, which are clearly
project/product-related (rather than watercooler chat stuff), and ask
channel owners for all of them if they would consider ensuring the
channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a valid answer to that
request, assuming $reasons)

Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it
doesn't go quite so far as to either not change anything on the one
hand, or enforce that everything is logged on the other?

~ Gijs

[Fred Wenzel]

On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
<gijskru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
> currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not currently
> being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
> than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if they
> would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
> valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't go
> quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
> that everything is logged on the other?

+1 from me with a few points to consider:

* who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
channels are.
* let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
to people in those channels
* are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?

~F

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
> <gijskru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
>> currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not currently
>> being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
>> than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if they
>> would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
>> valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)
>>
>> Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't go
>> quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
>> that everything is logged on the other?
>
> +1 from me with a few points to consider:
>
> * who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
> I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
> channels are.

Chanserv is what I had in mind, failing that we could check with the ops
in the channel.

> * let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
> to people in those channels

IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.

> * are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
> those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?

The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y. I wouldn't much care
either way, but I guess we could check with IT, who already admin the
IRC server anyway, if other people do feel strongly?

If there is a lack of objection within the next week or so / general
agreement on this plan, Benjamin, could you drive this?

~ Gijs

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 28/01/2015 20:00, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:
>> * let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
>> to people in those channels
>
> IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
> assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.

Sorry, I just realized that you probably mean making the privacy
implications of saying stuff in logged channels obvious to participants,
rather than making it obvious *where* to find logs if people need them
(which is what I thought you meant when I initially replied). Good question.

I still think /topic linking will be easiest. I and many others find the
'welcoming bots' pretty spammy, so I'd prefer not to use them if we
don't absolutely have to.

We can also put a disclaimer with a link to the logging index on the
MOTD (which should be a straightforward job for an IRCOP / server
admin). The IRC wiki pages on MDN/wiki.m.o should probably also mention
this.

I personally would think that sufficient - as many people have
highlighted, conversations are often logged by other participants and
I've come to expect this, but I am probably not the least biased
observer. If other people think we very much need more notice than the
topic, MOTD and wikis, then please speak up.

~ Gijs

[Gijs Kruitbosch]

On 28/01/2015 20:00, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:

> On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:
>> * let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
>> to people in those channels
>
> IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
> assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
<gijskru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/01/2015 19:52, Fred Wenzel wrote:
>>

>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Gijs Kruitbosch
>> <gijskru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So, strawman (which IMO is reasonable): can we check irc.m.o for
>>> currently-public channels with 10 or more people in that are not
>>> currently
>>> being publicly logged, which are clearly project/product-related (rather
>>> than watercooler chat stuff), and ask channel owners for all of them if
>>> they
>>> would consider ensuring the channel is publicly logged? (where "No" is a
>>> valid answer to that request, assuming $reasons)
>>>
>>> Does that seem like a reasonable proposal to everyone, even if it doesn't
>>> go
>>> quite so far as to either not change anything on the one hand, or enforce
>>> that everything is logged on the other?
>>
>>
>> +1 from me with a few points to consider:
>>
>> * who's the "owner"? Can that easily / programmatically be determined?
>> I suppose if it's registered with chanserv, not sure if all relevant
>> channels are.
>
>

> Chanserv is what I had in mind, failing that we could check with the ops in
> the channel.
>

>> * let's still figure out how to make "logged and googleable" obvious
>> to people in those channels
>
>

> IMO /topic should have a link. If there is too much in there to do that,
> assuming we centralize this it should be clear to everyone.
>

>> * are we going to suggest/establish a particular place/procedure for
>> those logs to be published? How do people find out where that is?
>
>

> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing glob,
> who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in moving that
> somewhere more mozilla-official-y. I wouldn't much care either way, but I
> guess we could check with IT, who already admin the IRC server anyway, if
> other people do feel strongly?
>
> If there is a lack of objection within the next week or so / general
> agreement on this plan, Benjamin, could you drive this?
>
> ~ Gijs

I could drive this yes

[Byron Jones]

Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.

there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment
9 and onwards.

> I wouldn't much care either way, but I guess we could check with IT,
> who already admin the IRC server anyway, if other people do feel
> strongly?

i'm happy to continue to run my logging service on my own infrastructure
for the foreseeable future. the hosting costs are minimal, and i enjoy
running it :)

--
byron jones - :glob - bugzilla.mozilla.org team -

[Yvan Boily]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones <gl...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>
>> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
>> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
>> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.
>>
>

> there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment 9
> and onwards.

Yep, I think the main thing here is that legal/privacy folks need to weigh
in and do a privacy assessment (and I needinfo'd the right person on that
bug to get that ball rolling), but IMO this is a blocker before anything is
done using Mozilla infrastructure (
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125827#c3 is basically the
reason I think this is currently blocked)

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones <gl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>>

>> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
>> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
>> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.
>
>

> there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment 9
> and onwards.

There can be objections we do not need everyone to agree in order to
move this forward especially if the practice is more consistent with
our values and being more transparent about our project.

>
>> I wouldn't much care either way, but I guess we could check with IT,
>> who already admin the IRC server anyway, if other people do feel
>> strongly?
>

> i'm happy to continue to run my logging service on my own infrastructure for
> the foreseeable future. the hosting costs are minimal, and i enjoy running
> it :)

We could setup a simple cname :) although if we are in effect moving a
policy forward then it might still make sense for Mozilla to be the
keeper of the logs especially for purposes of communicating project
discussions out to those who might want it.

[Yvan Boily]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones <gl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
> >>

> >> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
> >> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
> >> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.
> >
> >

> > there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment
> 9
> > and onwards.
>
> There can be objections we do not need everyone to agree in order to
> move this forward especially if the practice is more consistent with
> our values and being more transparent about our project.
>
>

Sure we could. But then, if it is determined to be a violation or breach,
or we get negative press because someone leaks PII on an irc log hosted by
Mozilla, there will be a public log of the fact that people raised concerns
but others decided to move forward without waiting for legal/policy
guidance.

Don't forget that privacy is as much a core value at Mozilla as
transparency. Privacy should not be the place to move fast and break
things.

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Yvan Boily <ybo...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Benjamin Kerensa <bker...@mozillausa.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Byron Jones <gl...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> > Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
>> >>

>> >> The de facto standard place seems to be http://logs.glob.uno/ (CC'ing
>> >> glob, who AFAIK is running this). I don't know if there's interest in
>> >> moving that somewhere more mozilla-official-y.
>> >
>> >

>> > there's been some objections to that - in particular bug 1125827 comment
>> > 9
>> > and onwards.
>>
>> There can be objections we do not need everyone to agree in order to
>> move this forward especially if the practice is more consistent with
>> our values and being more transparent about our project.
>>
>
> Sure we could. But then, if it is determined to be a violation or breach, or
> we get negative press because someone leaks PII on an irc log hosted by
> Mozilla, there will be a public log of the fact that people raised concerns
> but others decided to move forward without waiting for legal/policy
> guidance.
>
> Don't forget that privacy is as much a core value at Mozilla as
> transparency. Privacy should not be the place to move fast and break
> things.

By moving forward I mean moving to the next step which is privacy and
legal review. But in talking with a few different people it seems this
will pass with flying colors since we would just be bringing this
communication medium into parity with other mediums like mailing
lists.

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

Il 29/01/15 22:15, Benjamin Kerensa ha scritto:

> By moving forward I mean moving to the next step which is privacy and
> legal review. But in talking with a few different people it seems this
> will pass with flying colors since we would just be bringing this
> communication medium into parity with other mediums like mailing lists.

I disagree on the last point. The "contract" when you subscribe to a
mailing list is clear, and it's part of the medium itself: other
subjects will have a copy of your message (but that doesn't make it
public), archives might be accessible to the world or only people
subscribed to the list. Everything is clearly explained when you subscribe.

But ignoring that, I don't see anyone talking about "time": how long are
you suggesting to keep these logs? 'Forever' is really not something I'm
comfortable with.

On a side note, I confess that I'm already annoyed when people copy and
paste pieces of discussions from IRC to Bugzilla as a shortcut, I hope
they don't start linking IRC logs instead with persistent official logs
available.

Francesco

[Mike Hoye]

On 2015-01-30 1:56 AM, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
>
> But ignoring that, I don't see anyone talking about "time": how long
> are you suggesting to keep these logs? 'Forever' is really not
> something I'm comfortable with.
>
> On a side note, I confess that I'm already annoyed when people copy
> and paste pieces of discussions from IRC to Bugzilla as a shortcut, I
> hope they don't start linking IRC logs instead with persistent
> official logs available.

Can you elaborate on these two points? I'm not sure why someone should
feel differently about, say, conversations about a bug that happen in
Bugzilla being archived perpetually, as opposed to similar conversations
on IRC.

- mhoye

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

Il 30/01/15 19:14, Mike Hoye ha scritto:

I consider Bugzilla an official communication channel, where I write in
my best English and only about things pertaining the subject at matter.
Bugzilla is also our interface with core contributors and developers
outside of Mozilla, information should be clear and self-contained as
much as possible (i.e. my grudge against copy & paste of IRC discussions
out of context).

On IRC I might get involved in whimsy discussions, and that's not
something I necessarily feel like sharing outside of the people I'm
talking with, especially in a persistent log. Knowing that the
discussion is logged will definitely change the way I interact with
other people, it will become another channel where I have to restrain
myself.

Francesco

[Al Billings]

On 1/30/15 10:45 AM, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
> On IRC I might get involved in whimsy discussions, and that's not
> something I necessarily feel like sharing outside of the people I'm
> talking with, especially in a persistent log. Knowing that the
> discussion is logged will definitely change the way I interact with
> other people, it will become another channel where I have to restrain
> myself.

++

[Al Billings]

On 1/30/15 10:45 AM, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
> On IRC I might get involved in whimsy discussions, and that's not
> something I necessarily feel like sharing outside of the people I'm
> talking with, especially in a persistent log. Knowing that the
> discussion is logged will definitely change the way I interact with
> other people, it will become another channel where I have to restrain
> myself.

++

[Al Billings]

On 1/30/15 10:45 AM, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote:
> On IRC I might get involved in whimsy discussions, and that's not
> something I necessarily feel like sharing outside of the people I'm
> talking with, especially in a persistent log. Knowing that the
> discussion is logged will definitely change the way I interact with
> other people, it will become another channel where I have to restrain
> myself.

++