Pix1234/IRC chat log for #miraheze-ops

## IRC chat log for #miraheze-ops
[2021-02-20 18:37:28] <JohnLewis> dmehus: when did you get flags in -feed?
[2021-02-20 18:41:13] <paladox> ^
[2021-02-20 18:42:39] <dmehus> JohnLewis, we discussed it in #miraheze-sre a few days ago, remember?
[2021-02-20 18:43:18] <JohnLewis> No?
[2021-02-20 18:44:18] <dmehus> Yeah, remember I asked about it, or I asked Reception123 about it, and he asked if you had any objections to flagging Void, me, and other MWEs as needed
[2021-02-20 18:44:48] <dmehus> Might've been discussed in #miraheze-ops or #miraheze-sre; can't remember which one
[2021-02-20 18:45:58] <JohnLewis> I don’t remember that conversation at all, I don’t understand why I would says it’s fine to give ops perms to a large group of people in a channel only certain flagged users can talk it and why anyone outside of the tech team would need such permissions in a purely technical only channel
[2021-02-20 18:50:51] <dmehus> Well, it's related to #miraheze-cvt-feed in terms of recent changes that occur on-wiki. It's arguably more useful for Stewards and Global Sysops to monitor than SRE, but I can see a need for SRE to have flags there as well. The question becomes which SRE and which Stewards/GS should be flagged. I don't really see a downside to flagging everyone, tbh
[2021-02-20 18:52:14] <paladox> Why would stewards need flags in there? Only one bot can speak and that's a bot maintained by the tech team.
[2021-02-20 18:52:17] <JohnLewis> ‘Need for SRE to have flags there as well’ no, there’s 100% a need for SRE to have flags there. Stewards/GS there is 0% unless you’re able to somehow manage that RC feed
[2021-02-20 18:54:59] <dmehus> Well, okay, perhaps stewards could just be +V, but then arguably only SRE (Infrastructure) needs to have the +O flags, if it's purely used from a technical perspective. Stewards and GS, and MWEs, should arguably have +V though, for reporting specific errors (since you can't link to specific conversation points in the channel). But I just don't see how #miraheze-feed is any different than #miraheze-cvt-feed. It's not used 100% by SRE?
[2021-02-20 18:55:25] <JohnLewis> Why does stewards need +V in a channel designed for one bot *only* to comment in
[2021-02-20 18:55:40] <JohnLewis> not only has this change not been discussed, it has no need, has no necessity and has no logic
[2021-02-20 18:55:52] <dmehus> To be able to talk by creating a ping bookmark to specific issues
[2021-02-20 18:56:00] <JohnLewis> you’re beginning to make changes for the sake of power, less for improvements
[2021-02-20 18:56:04] <dmehus> I disagree that it has no necessity and logic
[2021-02-20 18:56:49] <paladox> Also we don't maintain -cvt-feed as far as i'm aware
[2021-02-20 18:57:06] <JohnLewis> My honest advice to you is seriously to desist from generating self-propelled changes to both channel management and policy without discussion, as at times you’re increasing tension and debates rather than solving actual problems
[2021-02-20 18:58:32] <dmehus> Okay, I guess I misunderstood the purpose of #miraheze-feed. I thought it was more for Stewards and Global Sysops to monitor than for purely a technical feed.
[2021-02-20 18:59:29] <JohnLewis> It’s for everyone to monitor
[2021-02-20 18:59:45] <JohnLewis> but by that logic, that would mean we should grant everyone ops in the channel
[2021-02-20 19:00:22] <dmehus> Well, in fairness, #wikipedia-simple does grant anyone with a Wikipedia/Wikimedia or Miraheze cloak +V
[2021-02-20 19:00:46] <JohnLewis> Point being?
[2021-02-20 19:00:51] <dmehus> Arguably no one needs to be auto-voiced in a channel designed not for talking, though, no?
[2021-02-20 19:01:09] <JohnLewis> No, they don’t - but then why did you do that?
[2021-02-20 19:01:35] <dmehus> well I did suggest that to Reception123, but he didn't want to remove the +AVO from users
[2021-02-20 19:02:10] <Universal_Omega> In all fairness JohnLewis, that was also my thought about the purpose of #miraheze-feed, for CVT, because that's how it's listed on https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/IRC#CVT. Although I don't have an opinion about the flagging there.
[2021-02-20 19:02:11] <MirahezeBot> [ IRC - Miraheze Meta ] - meta.miraheze.org
[2021-02-20 19:02:31] <JohnLewis> That channel predates CVT
[2021-02-20 19:02:55] <JohnLewis> If CVT choose to adopt it, that is their choice - it doesn’t mean it’s specifically and only for them
[2021-02-20 19:03:05] <dmehus> All I did was remove the -O, and I didn't add the flags to RhinosF1, Voidwalker, or NDKilla. Reception123 added those, and I added flags only to Universal_Omega when he requested it
[2021-02-20 19:03:27] <dmehus> but in fairness, perhaps no one really needs to be auto-voiced and only SRE needs +o?
[2021-02-20 19:04:19] <JohnLewis> Which is my point - it’s rather ironic you’re now peddling something you didn’t support a few minutes ago
[2021-02-20 19:05:01] <dmehus> because you swayed my opinion / view back to what I originally, at least in part, argued :)
[2021-02-20 19:06:44] <JohnLewis> If you’re not utterly convinced the idea is necessary, my advice moving forward would be discuss it with more than one person before asking them/suggesting that they do it
[2021-02-20 19:07:26] <JohnLewis> as if clarifying the scope of the channel sways your opinion, I don’t see the necessity to do it without a discussion
[2021-02-20 19:07:30] <dmehus> Well, in fairness, Reception123 and I did think that you had implicitly supported it based on what was asked of you a couple days
[2021-02-20 19:07:50] <dmehus> Okay, fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
[2021-02-20 19:08:46] <JohnLewis> I was asked a question, I didn’t reply - therefore I supported it?
[2021-02-20 19:09:27] <dmehus> I'd have to look again, I thought there were multiple questions asked, one of which was answered and one of which wasn't
[2021-02-20 19:10:19] <JohnLewis> And the question involved here I didn’t reply to
[2021-02-20 19:11:00] <JohnLewis> So I’m unsure how you could conclude I supported something I didn’t even acknowledge
[2021-02-20 19:12:13] <Universal_Omega> All I did was ask because the flags had already been changed to include MWEs and I just wasn't there. I think this whole thing was due to a misunderstanding tbh. Maybe flags should revert to what they were before, remove MWEs, and give IEs what they had before? But again, I'm not to worried about what happens with that channel and don't have an opinion really.
[2021-02-20 19:12:17] <dmehus> I didn't say you supported it, but one would might conclude you weren't opposed to the idea since you didn't reply but responded to the previous question
[2021-02-20 19:12:55] <dmehus> Yeah, I agree, Universal_Omega. Apologies for the misunderstanding on my part as well
[2021-02-20 19:13:12] <JohnLewis> ‘ think that you had implicitly supported it’
[2021-02-20 19:13:48] <dmehus> I guess that was a poor choice of words then?
[2021-02-20 19:13:59] <JohnLewis> This all boils down to simply not having a discussion and rather deciding approval based upon whether people say no, not whether people say yes
[2021-02-20 19:14:16] <Voidwalker> If I may, never assume that someone supports a change without explicit approval. Also, proposals (in general, but also specific to changes to channel/platform management/moderation) absolutely should be discussed openly prior to implementation.
[2021-02-20 19:14:48] <dmehus> Okay, fair enough.
	[2021-02-20 18:37:28] <JohnLewis> dmehus: when did you get flags in -feed?
	[2021-02-20 18:41:13] <paladox> ^
	[2021-02-20 18:42:39] <dmehus> JohnLewis, we discussed it in #miraheze-sre a few days ago, remember?
	[2021-02-20 18:43:18] <JohnLewis> No?
	[2021-02-20 18:44:18] <dmehus> Yeah, remember I asked about it, or I asked Reception123 about it, and he asked if you had any objections to flagging Void, me, and other MWEs as needed
	[2021-02-20 18:44:48] <dmehus> Might've been discussed in #miraheze-ops or #miraheze-sre; can't remember which one
	[2021-02-20 18:45:58] <JohnLewis> I don’t remember that conversation at all, I don’t understand why I would says it’s fine to give ops perms to a large group of people in a channel only certain flagged users can talk it and why anyone outside of the tech team would need such permissions in a purely technical only channel
	[2021-02-20 18:50:51] <dmehus> Well, it's related to #miraheze-cvt-feed in terms of recent changes that occur on-wiki. It's arguably more useful for Stewards and Global Sysops to monitor than SRE, but I can see a need for SRE to have flags there as well. The question becomes which SRE and which Stewards/GS should be flagged. I don't really see a downside to flagging everyone, tbh
	[2021-02-20 18:52:14] <paladox> Why would stewards need flags in there? Only one bot can speak and that's a bot maintained by the tech team.
	[2021-02-20 18:52:17] <JohnLewis> ‘Need for SRE to have flags there as well’ no, there’s 100% a need for SRE to have flags there. Stewards/GS there is 0% unless you’re able to somehow manage that RC feed
	[2021-02-20 18:54:59] <dmehus> Well, okay, perhaps stewards could just be +V, but then arguably only SRE (Infrastructure) needs to have the +O flags, if it's purely used from a technical perspective. Stewards and GS, and MWEs, should arguably have +V though, for reporting specific errors (since you can't link to specific conversation points in the channel). But I just don't see how #miraheze-feed is any different than #miraheze-cvt-feed. It's not used 100% by SRE?
	[2021-02-20 18:55:25] <JohnLewis> Why does stewards need +V in a channel designed for one bot only to comment in
	[2021-02-20 18:55:40] <JohnLewis> not only has this change not been discussed, it has no need, has no necessity and has no logic
	[2021-02-20 18:55:52] <dmehus> To be able to talk by creating a ping bookmark to specific issues
	[2021-02-20 18:56:00] <JohnLewis> you’re beginning to make changes for the sake of power, less for improvements
	[2021-02-20 18:56:04] <dmehus> I disagree that it has no necessity and logic
	[2021-02-20 18:56:49] <paladox> Also we don't maintain -cvt-feed as far as i'm aware
	[2021-02-20 18:57:06] <JohnLewis> My honest advice to you is seriously to desist from generating self-propelled changes to both channel management and policy without discussion, as at times you’re increasing tension and debates rather than solving actual problems
	[2021-02-20 18:58:32] <dmehus> Okay, I guess I misunderstood the purpose of #miraheze-feed. I thought it was more for Stewards and Global Sysops to monitor than for purely a technical feed.
	[2021-02-20 18:59:29] <JohnLewis> It’s for everyone to monitor
	[2021-02-20 18:59:45] <JohnLewis> but by that logic, that would mean we should grant everyone ops in the channel
	[2021-02-20 19:00:22] <dmehus> Well, in fairness, #wikipedia-simple does grant anyone with a Wikipedia/Wikimedia or Miraheze cloak +V
	[2021-02-20 19:00:46] <JohnLewis> Point being?
	[2021-02-20 19:00:51] <dmehus> Arguably no one needs to be auto-voiced in a channel designed not for talking, though, no?
	[2021-02-20 19:01:09] <JohnLewis> No, they don’t - but then why did you do that?
	[2021-02-20 19:01:35] <dmehus> well I did suggest that to Reception123, but he didn't want to remove the +AVO from users
	[2021-02-20 19:02:10] <Universal_Omega> In all fairness JohnLewis, that was also my thought about the purpose of #miraheze-feed, for CVT, because that's how it's listed on https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/IRC#CVT. Although I don't have an opinion about the flagging there.
	[2021-02-20 19:02:11] <MirahezeBot> [ IRC - Miraheze Meta ] - meta.miraheze.org
	[2021-02-20 19:02:31] <JohnLewis> That channel predates CVT
	[2021-02-20 19:02:55] <JohnLewis> If CVT choose to adopt it, that is their choice - it doesn’t mean it’s specifically and only for them
	[2021-02-20 19:03:05] <dmehus> All I did was remove the -O, and I didn't add the flags to RhinosF1, Voidwalker, or NDKilla. Reception123 added those, and I added flags only to Universal_Omega when he requested it
	[2021-02-20 19:03:27] <dmehus> but in fairness, perhaps no one really needs to be auto-voiced and only SRE needs +o?
	[2021-02-20 19:04:19] <JohnLewis> Which is my point - it’s rather ironic you’re now peddling something you didn’t support a few minutes ago
	[2021-02-20 19:05:01] <dmehus> because you swayed my opinion / view back to what I originally, at least in part, argued :)
	[2021-02-20 19:06:44] <JohnLewis> If you’re not utterly convinced the idea is necessary, my advice moving forward would be discuss it with more than one person before asking them/suggesting that they do it
	[2021-02-20 19:07:26] <JohnLewis> as if clarifying the scope of the channel sways your opinion, I don’t see the necessity to do it without a discussion
	[2021-02-20 19:07:30] <dmehus> Well, in fairness, Reception123 and I did think that you had implicitly supported it based on what was asked of you a couple days
	[2021-02-20 19:07:50] <dmehus> Okay, fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
	[2021-02-20 19:08:46] <JohnLewis> I was asked a question, I didn’t reply - therefore I supported it?
	[2021-02-20 19:09:27] <dmehus> I'd have to look again, I thought there were multiple questions asked, one of which was answered and one of which wasn't
	[2021-02-20 19:10:19] <JohnLewis> And the question involved here I didn’t reply to
	[2021-02-20 19:11:00] <JohnLewis> So I’m unsure how you could conclude I supported something I didn’t even acknowledge
	[2021-02-20 19:12:13] <Universal_Omega> All I did was ask because the flags had already been changed to include MWEs and I just wasn't there. I think this whole thing was due to a misunderstanding tbh. Maybe flags should revert to what they were before, remove MWEs, and give IEs what they had before? But again, I'm not to worried about what happens with that channel and don't have an opinion really.
	[2021-02-20 19:12:17] <dmehus> I didn't say you supported it, but one would might conclude you weren't opposed to the idea since you didn't reply but responded to the previous question
	[2021-02-20 19:12:55] <dmehus> Yeah, I agree, Universal_Omega. Apologies for the misunderstanding on my part as well
	[2021-02-20 19:13:12] <JohnLewis> ‘ think that you had implicitly supported it’
	[2021-02-20 19:13:48] <dmehus> I guess that was a poor choice of words then?
	[2021-02-20 19:13:59] <JohnLewis> This all boils down to simply not having a discussion and rather deciding approval based upon whether people say no, not whether people say yes
	[2021-02-20 19:14:16] <Voidwalker> If I may, never assume that someone supports a change without explicit approval. Also, proposals (in general, but also specific to changes to channel/platform management/moderation) absolutely should be discussed openly prior to implementation.
	[2021-02-20 19:14:48] <dmehus> Okay, fair enough.