[TriLUG] Steering@ [#trilug IRC discussion]
Phillip Rhodes
mindcrime at cpphacker.co.uk
Thu May 24 15:19:20 EDT 2007
Some discussion of this issue from #trilug IRC. Not edited for content,
my contain $DEITY Only Knows What.
[14:09] <thunderbear> hey if I knew that the SC wasn't expected to
be inconvenienced with email from TriLUG members maybe I would have run
again. Sounds easy running the LUG without being bothered.
[14:09] <cybertooth> My wife's brother (smitty) does... I hope she
does too :-)
[14:09] <cybertooth> That message is just in place for dinks who
habitually harange the SC.
[14:10] |<-- alikins has left irc.trilug.org ("Client exiting")
[14:12] -->| YanceySlide
(i=YanceySl at gateway/tor/x-9cead1662fb27b1d) has joined #trilug
[14:12] <cybertooth> @lart alikins for leaving
[14:12] * Tribot thwaps alikins with the letter 'K' for leaving
[14:12] <shaldannon> how appropriate
[14:13] <cybertooth> would that make him: Kalikins
[14:14] <thunderbear> cybertooth: I don't expect anyone to take on
responsibilities in the SC that I wasn't willing to take myself. The LUG
is unhealthy. I don't think putting up walls between the SC and the
membership is a good way to cure the patient.
[14:15] <jwbernin> wait... what walls?
[14:15] <jwbernin> nytime I need an SC person, I just yell for
mattfrye... :)
[14:15] <thunderbear> removing steering@ and forcing contact
through a lame web form
[14:15] <thunderbear> people talk to people through email. people
talk to faceless entities through web forms.
[14:16] <thunderbear> jwbernin: but what if you need the attention
of the full SC?
[14:16] <mattfrye> then email us all
[14:16] <jwbernin> then I yell louder. :)
[14:16] <mattfrye> it's not hard to get a hold of us. and
generally, if you get one person, that person will inform the group
[14:16] <thunderbear> glad you think it's funny
[14:17] <jwbernin> most of the time, they ignore me since I'm just
yelling for the sake of getting their attention and then saying 'no,
don't need anything, go about your business' :)
[14:17] <thunderbear> (that was aimed at jwbernin)
[14:17] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i didn't see your name on the ballot
[14:17] <thunderbear> mattfrye: not this time around but yes I
have served also
[14:17] <mattfrye> didn't you say last year that you were going to
run?
[14:17] <thunderbear> mattfrye: I said that before i knew I was
having a 3rd kid
[14:17] <mattfrye> thunderbear: this i understand
[14:18] * jwbernin bangs head against wall
[14:18] <thunderbear> and I will probably step up again at some point
[14:18] <lovelace> mattfrye: thunderbear has been on the SC
before. He's got cred. Attacking that isn't productive.
[14:18] <Nivex> Attacking in general isn't productive, and yet...
[14:19] <jwbernin> that's like saying Jimmy Carter has cred since
he got elected President once.
[14:19] <lovelace> @Nivex++
[14:19] <lovelace> jwbernin: Yes, he does.
[14:19] <mattfrye> lovelace: my intention wasn't to attack, just
to point out...
[14:19] <jwbernin> but what does that have to do with the current
situation?
[14:19] <thunderbear> the current situation, as I see it, is this...
[14:19] <lovelace> mattfrye: Understood, but I think you perhaps
misjudged the effect?
[14:19] <thunderbear> ....TriLUG is not as healthy/vibrant/diverse
as it once was
[14:19] <Nivex> This reminds me of an argument I had with a friend
of mine when we took away telnet access and switched to SSH.
[14:20] <mattfrye> lovelace: fair enough, but i can't always
accept responsibility for perceptions
[14:20] <thunderbear> ....the SC is less involved now than
previous SC's have been in maintaining a healthy/vibrant/diverse TriLUG.
[14:20] <Nivex> It's more secure, more featureful, and yet "But
I've always done it this way" seems to be the first argument trotted out.
[14:20] <jwbernin> Nivex: he wanted to be acle to sniff his
roommates password to get more pr0n? :)
[14:20] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i don't think that's a fair statement
[14:20] <Nivex> This is a changing field. Adapt or get out.
[14:20] <lovelace> mattfrye: As an SC member, you basically have
to. Whether you want to or not.
[14:20] <thunderbear> ....putting up walls (by tearing down lines
of communication) between the LUG and the SC makes the situation worse,
not better.
[14:20] <mattfrye> lovelace: i reject that reasoning
[14:21] <lovelace> mattfrye: That was one of the things about
being on the SC that continually wore me down.
[14:21] <lovelace> mattfrye: It's not your reasoning to reject.
It's how the members perceive things.
[14:21] <thunderbear> I reject your rejections
[14:21] <FordPrefect> Uhh guys thunderbear the SC is still forming
[14:21] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i think we've adequately
compensated for that lack of steering@
[14:21] <jwbernin> two rejections == acceptance ?
[14:21] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: I am not referring to the new
blood :)
[14:21] <FordPrefect> so not sure how we can be characterized as
being more or less active
[14:22] <lovelace> mattfrye: Every single time I said something
controversial, even if I prefixed it, suffixed it and interspersed it
with "This is my personal opinion and not that of the SC", I *always*
got dinged as an SC member for it.
[14:22] <Nivex> Given how difficult it was to get people to even
run, you might want to cut the new guys some slack.
[14:22] <lovelace> Eventually, I just learned to live with it. :-(
[14:22] <mattfrye> lovelace: i would argue that accepting that
ding once allowed more dings to happen. even so i accept your point of
view. i just disagree with it.
[14:22] <thunderbear> yes there are responsibilities that go with
being on the SC, and I think that in recent years, those
responsibilities have been shirked to the detrement of the LUG
[14:23] <mattfrye> it doesn't have to be the same for every
incarnation of the sc
[14:23] <Nivex> @mattfrye++
[14:23] <lovelace> mattfrye: I wish you luck then. I personally
think you're somewhat idealistic, though.
[14:23] <thunderbear> it doesn't have to be the same, no. but
learn from the success and failures of what came before you.
[14:23] <Nivex> mattfrye: usher in a new era with your bad self :)
[14:23] |<-- YanceySlide has left irc.trilug.org (Remote closed
the connection)
[14:23] <jwbernin> does anyone mind if I ask what the reasoning
for changing to the web form versus steering@ was, before I judge it's
relative merits?
[14:24] <thunderbear> jwbernin: mattfrye posted his POV on that to
trilug@ today
[14:24] <jwbernin> (although in reality, I really don't give two
bits about the change...)
[14:24] <lovelace> jwbernin: steering@ has been out in public for
a *long* time as the primary means of contact with the SC.
[14:24] <lovelace> jwbernin: As a result, it gets a *lot* of spam.
[14:24] <mattfrye> well anyway, i'm obviously easy to get a hold
of. an SC responsibility that I *do* recognize is sharing what yous tell
me with the SC as a whole.
[14:24] <mattfrye> i promise you i will do that always
[14:25] <lovelace> mattfrye: One advantage of having a central
e-mail address, especially that is archived, is that there's a record of
members/the public's correspondence with the SC.
[14:25] <jbeimler> I've had the same email for 9 years. I get a
lot of spam, but spamassassin does a damn good job
[14:25] <lovelace> mattfrye: What about creating a new address for
the SC? One that's not on spam lists?
[14:25] <thunderbear> without steering@ the members are also
encouraged passively to email trilug@ as a whole with things that should
go to steering@
[14:26] <FordPrefect> my suggested solution:
[14:26] <thunderbear> @jbeimler++
[14:26] <FordPrefect> 1. Restrict emailing steering@ to registered
lug members
[14:26] <mattfrye> lovelace: i'm willing to discuss alternatives
such as another address.
[14:26] <FordPrefect> 2. make form go to same list.
[14:26] <FordPrefect> (but not restricted)
[14:26] <lovelace> FordPrefect: What about reporters who want to
contact the lug? Recruiters? Potential speakers?
[14:26] <FordPrefect> registered lug members = list members
[14:27] <lovelace> FordPrefect: registered lug members != list members
[14:27] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: that prevents people outside
the LUG from mailing the SC. For example, we used to actually have a
relationship with the local press (who were not typically on the mailing
list)
[14:27] <mattfrye> the external form is for recruiters, etc as I
explained in my list mail
[14:27] <lovelace> Who told the recruiters?
[14:28] <FordPrefect> if we have existing relationships we could
whitelist them
[14:28] <FordPrefect> and I suggest most external contacts
probably won't care if it is a form or a list alias
[14:28] <FordPrefect> that being said I don't have a "oh god never
send me spam issue"
[14:28] <thunderbear> but new people that want to get involved are
screwed if they don't find the magic web page they are supposed to know
about
[14:28] <cybertooth> Lovelace, I know what you mean - about
sending out any controversy when you are on the SC. You loose your
ability to be an individual when your represent a whole group of folks...
[14:28] <mattfrye> lovelace: do i really need to tell every
recruiter? am i responsible to them too?
[14:28] <lovelace> FordPrefect: The outside contact is over 7
years old. It's ingrained in people now.
[14:29] <FordPrefect> my filters are sufficient
[14:29] <lovelace> @cybertooth++
[14:29] <lovelace> mattfrye: You represent the LUG, do you not?
[14:29] <Nivex> I thought mail to steering@ got caught by the
mailman hold interface
[14:29] <FordPrefect> I do want to discourage people from asking
the SC to police the mail list w/o first asking the mail list to police
itself
[14:29] <FordPrefect> I think this is obviously a topic for our
first meeting tentatively scheduled for tomorrow
[14:29] <mattfrye> lovelace: yes, the lug and the lug's interests.
not the recruiters interests. they don't contact us for the lug's
interest, but their own
[14:30] <lovelace> mattfrye: If you change the primary means of
contacting the LUG, yes, you are responsible. Just like sending out
change of address cards.
[14:30] <thunderbear> the recruiters' interests are usually of
mutual interest to the LUG
[14:30] <thunderbear> that's why we encourage the recruiters to
drop Linux job listings on the LUG
[14:30] <mattfrye> lovelace: we put it on the web site (drupal)
and the list. it was well publicized.
[14:30] <FordPrefect> and the lug occasionally has interests that
coincide with the recruiters and occasionally not
[14:30] <cybertooth> As I recall the SC email list was
continuously subscribed to various e-blast lists - by folks who didn't
always get their way, and tended to blame the SC.
[14:30] * jwbernin thinks this would be a god time to quote Rodney
King...
[14:30] <lovelace> mattfrye: What happens when recruiters mail
steering@? Do they get an e-mail with that information?
[14:30] <thunderbear> we used to have those open lines of
communication but the SC has become increasingly isolationist
[14:31] <Nivex> can you set the steering@ to bounce with a "Use
the form at ..." message?
[14:31] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i disagree that the recruiters
interests are mutual to the lug. if they were, we'd get a piece of the
commission on those placements
[14:31] <thunderbear> mattfrye: it may be all about $$$ to you but
for me, it's about connecting good Linux people with good Linux jobs
[14:31] <lovelace> mattfrye: People come to the LUG looking for
information like that. I personally found 2 different jobs through the lug.
[14:31] <thunderbear> the $$$ works itself out when the LUG is healthy
[14:31] <FordPrefect> thunderbear clean slate though please.
Qualify your statements to not apply to the present just forming SC just
for my own sanity
[14:32] <jbroome> just a data point: i had no trouble with the
spam to steering at . If you're geeky enough to be in the lug, and geeky
enough to be on the sc, you should be able to control yourspam
[14:32] <jbroome> which i had no problem with
[14:32] <mattfrye> we did about everything we could to get the
word out about the form. last night, i put the word out about membership
contact to the sc.
[14:32] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: I already did say that my
commentary has NOTHING to do with the "new blood"
[14:32] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: I'm talking to the "old guard"
folks who are still on the SC now
[14:32] <FordPrefect> right but your follow on are in the
continuing case
[14:32] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: not all of the current SC is "new"
[14:32] <mattfrye> thunderbear: and yet i'm classified as old
blood? i've only been on the sc for a year
[14:33] <thunderbear> mattfrye: yes. you are perpetuating the
steering@ problem so I am aiming much of this squarely at you
[14:33] <FordPrefect> I would still argue that if you were
dissatisfied in the past and wish things to be better that you change
the tense of your statements
[14:33] <mattfrye> and as sysadmin, at that
[14:33] <mattfrye> thunderbear: oh, so it's personal?
[14:33] <lovelace> Nothing should be personal in things like this...
[14:33] <FordPrefect> thunderbear it is your position that he
should act arbitrarily without consulting the rest of the new steering
committee?
[14:33] -->| wyggler2 (n=mike at adsl-144-131-98.rmo.bellsouth.net)
has joined #trilug
[14:33] <jtower> all this because the sc decided to use a web form
instead of an open to the entire universe email address?
[14:33] -->| YanceySlide
(i=YanceySl at gateway/tor/x-feb7fd693d75e1bc) has joined #trilug
[14:33] <thunderbear> mattfrye: no. but mindcrime and FordPrefect
have voiced an interest in exploring alternative solutions so there is
no point in hammering on them about it
[14:34] <jwbernin> jtower: it's been a slow week.
[14:34] <jtower> apparently
[14:34] <lovelace> jtower: I think it's because the means of
contact was changed after many many years of being entreched.
[14:34] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: I think he has already acted
arbitrarily without consulting the rest of the new steering committee
[14:34] <mattfrye> i have agreed to discuss alternatives. just not
to sturn steering@ back on "because"
[14:34] <FordPrefect> thunderbear I think it is good that we know
that at least a vocal minority do not like the web form.
[14:34] <lovelace> thunderbear: No, this was done before the
election. It's just been brought up lately.
[14:34] <Nivex> <sarcasm="partial">See, the SC should just adopt
the stance of the US government: ignore all its constituents and do what
it damn well pleases. </sarcasm>
[14:34] * tarheelcoxn wanders in, tries to catch up on scrollback
[14:34] <thunderbear> mattfrye: we have expounded on some of the
reasons why. don't dismiss this as "because"
[14:35] <lovelace> mattfrye: Can we go back to my suggestion of a
new e-mail address?
[14:35] <jwbernin> tarheelcoxn: good luck with that, you'll have
to read fast. :)
[14:35] <mattfrye> lovelace: yes, let's discuss that.
[14:35] <thunderbear> I would have emailed my greivances to
steering@ but apparently that option is closed so I brought it here :)
[14:35] <tarheelcoxn> thunderbear: he has not acted arbitrarily or
without contact
[14:35] <lovelace> mattfrye: As I said, I think there is real
value to having communcations to the SC archived in some format so the
SC can refer back to it.
[14:35] <tarheelcoxn> also, I have contacted members of the press
personally
[14:35] <thunderbear> lovelace: if you publish that email address,
it will get spam, too. if you don't publish it, nobody knows to use it.
[14:36] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i'm open to discussion, but
reversing a well thought out decision because "it's the way it used to
be" is not going to happen
[14:36] * jwbernin mentiones that thunderbear could have sent his
grievances to the SC via the new web form as well...
[14:36] <mattfrye> lovelace: i agree with that
[14:36] <FordPrefect> So let me summarize:
[14:36] <tarheelcoxn> press that attended the OLPC talk did so
largely because of me
[14:36] <mattfrye> @jwbernin++
[14:36] <FordPrefect> the whole issue/etc
[14:36] <lovelace> thunderbear: It will take some time, though,
and you can be careful about how you publish it.
[14:36] <FordPrefect> 1. Some SC members would prefer not to have
to sort 100 spams per nugget
[14:36] <lovelace> mattfrye: If it works for another 5 years or
so, might that not be worth it?
[14:36] <thunderbear> jwbernin: I refuse to use a web form to talk
to real people
[14:37] <mattfrye> lovelace: yes, i agree with that. plus it will
give us time to apply filters
[14:37] <FordPrefect> 2. There is a fear that engaging modern spam
techniques will reject a real contact
[14:37] <mattfrye> thunderbear: yet you do it with irc
[14:37] <mattfrye> FordPrefect: that's the real issue
[14:37] <tarheelcoxn> thunderbear: and you can also email SC
members. You know emails for at least four of them
[14:37] <thunderbear> mattfrye: I have real people here in IRC
that I can interact with
[14:38] <FordPrefect> 3. There are inside (at least a vocal
minority if not a simple majority) people who would like to use an alias
and reject a web form for various preferences
[14:38] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i dare say your tone would be
different if we were face to face
[14:38] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: Theoretically, there used to be
the addresses chair@, vicechair@, sysadmin@, pr@, and treasurer at ...
[14:38] <thunderbear> mattfrye: what is that supposed to mean?
[14:38] <FordPrefect> 4. There are outside people who may not
recognize the contact has changed.
[14:38] <mattfrye> thunderbear: it means that everyone talks
differently over the internet (not just you). it's not real interaction.
[14:39] <thunderbear> mattfrye: I think you read "tone" into my
text that is not implied perhaps. The words that I am using are the same
kind of words I would use face to face.
[14:39] <Nivex> 1. agreed. 2. agreed. 3. no comment. 4. put up a
bounce message.
[14:39] <mattfrye> thunderbear: fair enough. let's all let this
cool down a bit.
[14:40] <jwbernin> @beer everyone
[14:40] * Tribot gets everyone a beer
[14:40] <FordPrefect> I myself would fall into the #3 camp but
lack a certain veracity for my preferences necessary to insist.
[14:40] <thunderbear> honestly, I have a long history with TriLUG,
I care deeply about its success and its future, and I see a pattern of
decline that deeply concerns me. Am I passionate about seeing
improvements in those areas? Hell yes. I don't think that's anything to
feel bad about.
[14:40] <Nivex> How about this: turn it back on, sort through the
crap whenever you get around to it.
[14:40] <mattfrye> Nivex: then sponsors assume we're not interested
[14:40] <tarheelcoxn> I like the bonce message idea better
[14:41] <mattfrye> if they don't hear back
[14:41] <FordPrefect> I suggest that we engage modern spam rating
techniques and sort the most stringent not spam into the inbox folder
[14:41] <mattfrye> ditto
[14:41] <tarheelcoxn> what mattfrye said
[14:41] <FordPrefect> and other things into the "needs sorting folder"
[14:41] <thunderbear> between modern spam filtering and
greylisting the spam shouldn't be a huge problem
[14:41] <jwbernin> greylisting might not work that well.
[14:41] <Nivex> how about instead of flooding steering@ back out
to the individual people, you set up a Cyrus shared folder
[14:41] <FordPrefect> Yes that has been my experience as well
thunderbear
[14:41] <Nivex> the SC members can get to that over IMAP
[14:41] <Nivex> with their own trilug accounts
[14:41] <mattfrye> thunderbear: how about we include you in the
discussion of this issue. if you feel your (or the LUG's) interests
aren't being represented, you can make it known.
[14:42] <mattfrye> discussion meaning, what we actually plan to do
[14:42] <thunderbear> Nivex: the problem with that is that you
potentially lose the archives... the mailman archives were, during my
tenure in the SC, invaluable into gaining insight about how previous
SC's had handled things in the past.
[14:42] * shaldannon votes that thunderbear receive all the
steering@ email and filter the spam
[14:43] <FordPrefect> that isn't true thunderbear, an IMAP shared
folder is essentially an archive
[14:43] <thunderbear> shaldannon: I have done that before. I'm not
asking anyone here to do anything that I haven't done myself.
[14:43] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: yes, it is another archive. but
what happens when someone takes it on themselves to "clean house" on
that folder to make it more efficient?
[14:43] <thunderbear> FordPrefect: the mailman archives on the
other hand tend to not get fscked with
[14:44] <mattfrye> we haven't deleted any archives.
[14:45] <thunderbear> I'm not suggesting any archives have been
messed with. I'm just suggesting that a shared IMAP folder would be a
tempting and convenient target to "clean up"
[14:45] * mindCrime reads backscroll.
[14:45] <mattfrye> i think some of you think i want the status
quo. that couldn't be further from the truth. i want the lug to grow and
evolve and I want everyone, who wants to be involved, involved.
[14:45] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i agree that imap isn't a good
solution
[14:45] <RangerRick> man, you'd think with all the smart people on
the trilug list, they can be smart enough to not all get into catfights
once every 2 months
[14:45] <lovelace> mattfrye: I don't think you want the status quo.
[14:46] <mattfrye> lovelace: ok, cool
[14:46] <RangerRick> time for my yearly "tired of this shit"
unsubscribe from the list :P
[14:46] <thunderbear> I think if you want the LUG to grow and
evolve, I think some of the old practices that have been dropped should
be re-evaluated. Re-opening lines of communication to the SC via email
is one such thing. Getting more involved with the press is another.
[14:46] <mattfrye> maybe we need an advisory committee to review
SC decisions to make sure we're not off our rockers.
[14:46] <thunderbear> RangerRick: this isn't a cat fight. It's a
spirited debate. :)
[14:46] <thunderbear> this hasn't devolved into petty personal
attacks and I hope nobody is taking this as one.
[14:46] <RangerRick> thunderbear: if I had joined
TriSpiritedDebateTeam, that'd be great
[14:46] <Nivex> RangerRick: some people just know how (and seem to
only want to) push buttons
[14:47] <Nivex> mattfrye: How about these decisions made in
person. Not on IRC. Not on the mailing list. In person.
[14:47] <Nivex> If you can't make it, send a proxy.
[14:47] <thunderbear> RangerRick: if you don't care about this
particular topic, just tune out. but it's not productive to sit on the
sidelines and whine about it.
[14:47] <RangerRick> I'll leave my gmail subscribed, because it's
easy to ignore huge swaths of conversation in it, but man, the S/N ratio
on trilug has gone down
[14:47] <thunderbear> same goes for Nivex
[14:47] <FordPrefect> otp
[14:47] -->| stefw (n=stef at foresight/developer/stefw) has joined
#trilug
[14:47] <RangerRick> and I'm not talking about offtopic, I don't
mind that...
[14:47] <mindCrime> ok, without reading the entire backscroll, let
me say this
[14:47] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i agree. we're just debating and
that's a good thing.
[14:47] <mindCrime> I hate spam as much as anybody
[14:48] <RangerRick> it's the endless discussionabout what is and
isn't off topic ;)
[14:48] <mindCrime> but I consider steering@ to be something akin
to "port 80"
[14:48] <mindCrime> it's a well known address, and as we can see
from that one thread, there are people who have not gotten the message
yet about switching to the web form
[14:49] <mindCrime> my hope is that we can find a technological
solution that would allow us to continue having a steering@ which is
available, while keeping the spam from overwhelming us. But if that's
not possible, that's ok.
[14:49] <Nivex> and to mattfrye's point of sponsors assuming we're
not interested. That's gonna happen no matter what. Some aren't going to
want to go the extra step of the web from.
[14:49] <Nivex> form.
[14:49] <Nivex> We're all hand wringing about a perfect solution.
There ain't one.
[14:50] * mindCrime goes back to reading backscroll
[14:50] <Nivex> Turn steering@ back on. Filter the hell out of it.
Leave the webform on. Call it good.
[14:50] <tarheelcoxn> in the past, our short-term solution was
this: steering@ goes to a mailman list, but only one member of the list
was set to receive mail
[14:50] <tarheelcoxn> and that member notified the others if there
was an actual nugget of value
[14:50] <jbroome> Ahh, thanks #trilug for making it easy to
concentrate on work today.
[14:51] <cybertooth> RangerRick: its' cyclical.
[14:51] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: So, what about discussions between
SC members?
[14:51] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: The steering list was were all the
SC business was done too.
[14:51] <RangerRick> cybertooth: yup, I'm cycling out of
subscribing again :)
[14:51] <tarheelcoxn> lovelace: in IRC
[14:51] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: If the SC isn't even talking to
each other, then the LUG is doomed.
[14:51] <thunderbear> the earth is about to split... I agree with
Nivex on something... or rather he agrees with me and just doesn't know
it... "Turn steering@ back on. Filter the hell out of it. Leave the
webform on. Call it good."
[14:51] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: IRC is a bad medium for things
like that.
[14:51] <cybertooth> RangerRick: bye, bye. Don't forget to write.
[14:51] <tarheelcoxn> lovelace: and when a consensus was reached,
somebody would report ot the list
[14:51] <lovelace> VERY BAD>
[14:51] <RangerRick> thunderbear: oh I know, I can leave, and I
am, just saying, when I have to ignore 80% of the topics, there's not
much point :)
[14:51] <lovelace> tarheelcoxn: That's a horrible situation.
[14:52] <Nivex> then maybe there needs to be a steering-discuss
list, members of SC only
[14:52] <thunderbear> RangerRick: I'm hashing it out here so we
don't have to clog the mailing list
[14:52] <tarheelcoxn> @Nivex++
[14:52] <lovelace> IRC lends itself to short, not well thought out
messages.
[14:52] <Nivex> where steering@ is a dist alias only
[14:52] <tarheelcoxn> suits me fine
[14:52] <cybertooth> mattfrye: I like the suggestion of just
allowing the folks on the Trilug main list to write to the Steering list
[14:52] <lovelace> Nivex: That would be a better solution.
[14:52] <cybertooth> mattfrye: that makes so much sense it just
hurts my mind to think of it any other way.
[14:53] <lovelace> cybertooth: It's a bad idea. The e-mail address
is supposed to be a primary means of contact for the LUG as a whole, not
just for members.
[14:53] <thunderbear> I disagree with cybertooth's suggestion
mainly because it still prevents people from outside of the LUG who have
legit business with the LUG from contacting the SC directly from their
email client, sans non-standard web form
[14:53] <thunderbear> I do like Nivex's suggestion and think it
bears merit and consideration
[14:54] <cybertooth> lovelace, thunderbear, mailman can bounce
those guys the webcontact form. Easy.
[14:54] <thunderbear> forcing the web contact form on anyone is EVIL
[14:54] <thunderbear> making it OPTIONAL is just fine
[14:54] <cybertooth> mattfrye: (lovelace, thunderbear) I'll even
volunteer to set that up.
[14:54] <lovelace> cybertooth: If mailman was acutally bouncing
that, it would be something.
[14:55] <lovelace> cybertooth: Unfortunately, I think this boils
down to the whole email list vs web forums debate.
[14:55] <thunderbear> if the spam is really so painful let me
suggest an alternative...
[14:55] <cybertooth> Hybrid! its the wave of the future/past!
[14:55] <lovelace> Web forums are useful for insular groups that
keep together.
[14:55] <lovelace> Contacts from outside, however, are much better
handled by e-mail.
[14:56] <Nivex> whoa whoa whoa! who the heck said anything about
forums?!
[14:56] <thunderbear> ...blacklist * as a sender to trilug at .
members of trilug@ and the announcement list are auto-whitelisted via
cronjob or whatever. anyone who is blacklisted gets an email saying
"click this link to be whitelisted" which allows outsiders to be
whitelisted to communicate directly to steering@
[14:56] <lovelace> Nivex: I was equating the web contact form with
web forums because their mechanisms are similar.
[14:57] <mattfrye> cybertooth: let's get you and thunderbear and
lovelace to form a committee to work this out
[14:57] <Nivex> I disagree. The form is just another injection
method. Forums intimate logins, threading, etc.
[14:57] <lovelace> thunderbear: Ick! Challege Response systems are
evil!
[14:57] <lovelace> Nivex: The analogy isn't prefect.
[14:57] <lovelace> er, perfect.
[14:58] <cybertooth> We'll call it the OFSC (the old farts SC)
[14:58] <mindCrime> backscatter makes C/R bad, IMO
[14:58] <lovelace> It isn't FordPrefect either. :-P
[14:58] <thunderbear> whatever the case, TriLUG has become more
internalized, more isolated, from the outside community and I think it
is unhealthy. I think TriLUG needs to try to open back up again, to its
members, to the local community, and to less geeky people who are
curious about Linux.
[14:58] <mindCrime> too many spoofed addresses out there
[14:58] <mindCrime> half the spam I get is bounce messages from
people spoofing addresses @ my domain. :-(
[14:58] <tarheelcoxn> mindCrime: amen
[14:58] <tarheelcoxn> mindCrime: I get a crapton of backscatter
[14:58] <thunderbear> C/R may not be the perfect answer. I'm
brainstorming ways to re-open steering@ while addressing the concerns
from the SC about spam flow
[14:58] <mattfrye> thunderbear: what do you suggest (other than
opening up steering@)
[14:59] <mattfrye> that list can't be the answer to all the problems
[14:59] <tarheelcoxn> thunderbear: thanks for the brainstorm. :)
it is appreciated
[14:59] <mindCrime> I like the idea of having steering@, set the
spamassassin rules up to a level that keep the spam reasonable, and
accept the occassional false positive that results in a missed contact.
especially if we could do that *and* auto-whitelist subscribers to trilug@
[14:59] <thunderbear> mattfrye: there used to be a very conscious
effort to reach out to different demographics like small businesses,
immigrant communities, students, gamers, etc. ALSO, the PR member of the
SC used to post advertisements in the local newspapers about upcoming
events to invite the general public.
[14:59] <mindCrime> and have the webform as an optional
alternative as well
[15:00] <cybertooth> thunderbear: most of that has been
institutionalized now.
[15:00] <thunderbear> I have no problem with leaving the web form
up as long as steering@ works also
[15:01] <mattfrye> i just don't want it opened up completely until
some sort of filter is in place
[15:01] <thunderbear> well the end result has been TriLUG has
become a group of professional sysadmins & software developers, whereas
before the membership was much more diverse
[15:01] <cybertooth> Or how about an alias that is sliding -
changing from day to day like: sc240507 at trilug.org
[15:01] <jbroome> one-time pads!
[15:01] <thunderbear> cybertooth: tell me you are joking
[15:01] <shaldannon> oh dear heavens
[15:01] <cybertooth> No. only the half-way intellegent can email you.
[15:01] <cybertooth> I *like* that/
[15:02] <thunderbear> :(
[15:02] <thunderbear> so much for breaking down the walls
[15:02] <jwbernin> god no. that would piss me off just by existing.
[15:02] <shaldannon> make them read an autogenerated image and
include the text in the subject of the email?
[15:02] <cybertooth> Well you shot down my ideal about the
bouncing all external traffic to the webform
[15:02] <cybertooth> shaldannon++
[15:03] <mattfrye> thunderbear: i plan to reach out to different
communities. up till now, that wasn't altogether up to me. nonetheless,
i would like to do all those things you mentioned
[15:03] <cybertooth> That seems resonable, then just grep for the
daily key
[15:03] -->| impl (n=impl at httpcraft/php/impl) has joined #trilug
[15:03] <jwbernin> eventually, you will end up getting spam
through the form as well.
[15:03] <thunderbear> well the whole idea being that people don't
communicate through web forms. they communicate largely through email.
we ought to strive to preserve that because anything less is going to
discourage open lines of communication.
[15:04] <cybertooth> thunderbear, I agree, BUT the SC should be
more reachable by the MEMBERS of the group... than by outside forces.
[15:04] <jwbernin> so opening up steering@ and getting a good
solution to the spam issue will be more effective in the long term than
just forcing a switch to the form
[15:05] <cybertooth> I think we could overcome one obsticle fairly
easily - by allowing steering at trilug.org to pass members email directly
to the SC folks.
[15:05] <mindCrime> cybertooth: I tend to agree with that to a
degree. I care about outsiders being able to reach us, but I'm more
concerned that the SC be reachable by the membership
[15:05] <thunderbear> I disagree with that concept, cybertooth. I
believe the SC should be equally accessible to local recruiters (who are
actually sending Linux jobs), local media, local government, etc.
[15:05] <jwbernin> cybertooth: where would you get the list of
valid mem ber addresses?
[15:05] <shaldannon> is it possible to open steering@ for things
that include the text from an autogenerated image and denying everythign
else?
[15:05] <jwbernin> I don't use my jwb at trilug.org email account.
[15:05] <lovelace> Here's one thing I'll throw out.....
[15:05] <thunderbear> jwbernin: valid member addresses can be
harvested from the member database (mysql) as well as subscribers to the
@trilug.org mailing lists
[15:05] <shaldannon> jwbernin: I think they mean the list
subscribed email addresses, unless you are forwarding...
[15:06] <cybertooth> jwbernin: I'm an old Mailman hack - I would
hack the accept list for the sc list to allow anyone from the Trilug
list to get in without filtering it.
[15:06] <lovelace> Since we keep bringing up the "membership
list", perhaps we can do something with either the current member db or
perhaps migrate it to something like CiviCRM and make use of it there...
[15:06] <mindCrime> my suggestion was to whitelist anybody who is
subscribed to trilug@
[15:06] <lovelace> I wonder if with CiviCRM we could have
memberships "expire" and get renewed so we could have a better idea of
who's current...
[15:06] <cybertooth> all good ideas.
[15:06] <mindCrime> if we could combine that with strong
spamassassin filtering, I kinda think that might work
[15:07] <mindCrime> although I can't prove it. :-)
[15:07] <shaldannon> maybe we should take the present discussion
on-list to involve more people>?
[15:07] <thunderbear> yes SpamAssassin should be trained to
autowhitelist email addresses known to be subscribers to other TriLUG
mailing lists as well as email addresses from the member database. Then
use your MUA or Mailman itself to filter email tagged by SA as SPAM
[15:07] * lovelace would volunteer to investigate moving the
member db to a more modern platform like CivCRM (or something else that
could be useful)
[15:07] <mindCrime> shaldannon: there's a thread about this stuff
[15:07] <thunderbear> lovelace: do the articles of incorporation
say anything about expiring memberships? I don't think that's covered.
[15:07] <mindCrime> thundebear: yeah, something like that
[15:08] <lovelace> thunderbear: I'm pretty sure they don't. But
AOI can be changed (and probably should be, since there are several
things in it that are problematic)
[15:08] <lovelace> In fact, at one point, the SC had looked into
updating them and moving certain things out into bylaws.
[15:09] <thunderbear> lovelace: it would be good to hammer out
those changes and incorporate them all at once... changing the AOI
should not be taken lightly or done often.
[15:09] <lovelace> thunderbear: Agreed.
[15:09] <tarheelcoxn> lovelace, thunderbear, mattfrye, mindCrime,
etc: could somebody please either email the list or me with suggestions
or a summary of this discussion? I have to deal with some tickets.
[15:09] <lovelace> thunderbear: jeremyp had spearheaded that, so
it would probably be good to get his view of that...
[15:09] <cybertooth> thunderbear, mattfrye, how about if we just
let folks who want to email the SC sign up (and get authenticated) then
recruiters, members, etc could get on that list by contacting the list
or by going through the authentication
More information about the TriLUG
mailing list