2008-09-06T11:17:06 *** Prod has joined #SW-Meeting 2008-09-06T11:17:06 *** ChanServ sets mode: +qo Prod Prod 2008-09-06T11:18:34 *** Skizzerz has joined #SW-Meeting 2008-09-06T11:19:50 *** Arrow has joined #SW-Meeting 2008-09-06T11:24:28 Okay? 2008-09-06T11:29:59 *** Procyon has joined #SW-Meeting 2008-09-06T11:30:38 have I missed much? 2008-09-06T11:30:52 we haven't started yet 2008-09-06T11:36:51 Are we to start at 2 or 3? 2008-09-06T11:36:59 (Sorry, I'm completely out of it right now...) 2008-09-06T11:37:09 we were ''supposed'' to start llike 15 mins ago :P 2008-09-06T11:37:15 but whenever you want to start it is fine w/ me 2008-09-06T11:37:18 And we're just waiting for NMH? 2008-09-06T11:37:25 Cuz I'm sure Echelon won't be here. 2008-09-06T11:37:27 it's not like we have all that much to talk about... 2008-09-06T11:37:45 I'm more comfortable letting Prod tackle the agenda. 2008-09-06T11:38:03 The only problem on my side is finding Echelon and getting him to sign and fax the GamerDNA contract. 2008-09-06T11:38:14 The only thing on it is "* Upgrade to 1.13" 2008-09-06T11:38:20 tru 2008-09-06T11:38:21 e 2008-09-06T11:38:39 GamerDNA contract? /me hasn't heard anything about that :P 2008-09-06T11:39:48 Really? 2008-09-06T11:39:51 Wow, I'm sorry. 2008-09-06T11:39:57 I was going to do a whole thing about it, 2008-09-06T11:40:07 but I'm actually quite frustrated and aggrevated with Echelon. 2008-09-06T11:40:22 I've left him five voice mails and at least three emails to both gmail addresses. 2008-09-06T11:40:28 he hasn't done much lately, has he? 2008-09-06T11:40:32 I haven't heard a peep from him in over two weeks. 2008-09-06T11:40:56 Last month it was him going camping. This month, I haven't the slightest clue where he is. 2008-09-06T11:41:32 Anyway, 2008-09-06T11:41:43 Yeah, we're almost all set to join the GamerDNA alliance, 2008-09-06T11:42:03 which is pretty much an ad redirection service. 2008-09-06T11:42:17 We will have to ditch our Google and AdWidget blocks, 2008-09-06T11:42:28 I can always clip stuff out of the logs :) 2008-09-06T11:42:28 and replace them with GamerDNA server-fed ads. 2008-09-06T11:43:24 They also offer a completely free hosting solution. Echelon (when I last spoke to him three weeks ago) thought he'd like to take advantage of it, Prod feels slightly differently. 2008-09-06T11:45:32 free hosting has many pitfalls and downsides 2008-09-06T11:47:05 it also seems to be quite limited in scope, not suitable for strategywiki 2008-09-06T11:49:01 anyway... 2008-09-06T11:49:12 how so? 2008-09-06T11:49:46 well, unless you found a different link than I did regarding hosting, it seems to me like you only have a limited amount of templates, etc. that you can choose from to build a sit 2008-09-06T11:49:49 *site 2008-09-06T11:49:50 Chances are high that their hardware solution is more powerful than what we're even paying for at HostEasier. 2008-09-06T11:50:22 GamerDNA says that they will happily customize and install any service that we need. 2008-09-06T11:50:29 plus, free hosts almost NEVER give out SSH access 2008-09-06T11:50:47 yes, note how "they" will install it, not us 2008-09-06T11:51:27 also, many free hosts force ads on a page, meaning that you have no control over where they go. This utterly breaks how mediawiki looks 2008-09-06T11:51:28 Oh, well... 2008-09-06T11:51:34 No, 2008-09-06T11:51:44 They absolutely will not do that to us. 2008-09-06T11:51:50 ok then 2008-09-06T11:51:51 It's not the same as a hosting company. 2008-09-06T11:51:59 They have only one motivation to want to host us, 2008-09-06T11:52:06 which is? 2008-09-06T11:52:21 and that is, they can't make any money if our site is down. 2008-09-06T11:52:36 If our site ever went down, they would be on top of it ASAP. 2008-09-06T11:53:00 I mean, whether they host us or not, we're already agreeing to host their ads. 2008-09-06T11:53:06 do you have any details about what sort of things we will get from the hosting? (e.g. how much space/bandwidth do we have) 2008-09-06T11:53:07 And they get very lucrative ad deals. 2008-09-06T11:53:28 according to Prod, we're already pushing 100 GB in space 2008-09-06T11:53:34 Well, my understanding is that it's unlimited as far as what's physically possible. 2008-09-06T11:53:44 Wow! seriously? That's amazing. 2008-09-06T11:53:52 still seems too good to be true, tbh 2008-09-06T11:54:30 did they send an email regarding the specs, etc.? 2008-09-06T11:54:40 No, not concerning specs, but I can ask. 2008-09-06T11:54:50 but they did send something? 2008-09-06T11:54:53 I've had the contract sitting in my mailbox for about a month :P 2008-09-06T11:55:12 heh 2008-09-06T11:55:46 so for the hosting, do you know how much control we have over the os, etc.? 2008-09-06T11:56:26 for some of the things we run on our current host, we'll need root (or at least sudo) access to the server 2008-09-06T11:56:33 namely IRC 2008-09-06T11:57:07 but if they're planning on giving us all of that (aka pretty much everything we have now) except for free, I don't see why we shouldn't switch 2008-09-06T11:57:19 I'd like to hear Prod's viewpoint though, since he opposed this earlier 2008-09-06T11:58:43 hmm... looks like Prod isn't here 2008-09-06T11:58:50 *** Dukeruckley has joined #SW-Meeting 2008-09-06T11:59:05 anyway, I'd certainly be interested in such a thing, just need to know a bit more info on it first 2008-09-06T11:59:07 hi Dukeruckley 2008-09-06T11:59:25 hey, sorry i'm late 2008-09-06T12:00:02 Hi Duke! 2008-09-06T12:00:05 Procyon: perhaps after you get all the info needed on it, you can make a thread on CI? 2008-09-06T12:00:12 You got it. 2008-09-06T12:00:16 Is Prod afk? 2008-09-06T12:00:21 looks like it 2008-09-06T12:00:45 We really just need him to address the upgrade... 2008-09-06T12:01:02 And if anyone knows the whereabouts/life or death status of Echelon... 2008-09-06T12:01:09 have i missed anything very important? 2008-09-06T12:01:30 I know a bit about the upgrade, have no idea about ech though 2008-09-06T12:01:46 Dukeruckley: of course! Everything is important! ;) 2008-09-06T12:01:57 the logs will be posted after the meeting, though, so it's fine 2008-09-06T12:02:09 ok cool 2008-09-06T12:03:24 regarding the upgrade... you'd pretty much have to be living under a rock in order not to figure out that we've upgraded the site to 1.13.0 2008-09-06T12:03:37 Ironcially, today a bugfix version (1.13.1) was released xD 2008-09-06T12:04:23 What is fixed? 2008-09-06T12:04:30 http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-announce/2008-September/000077.html 2008-09-06T12:05:52 I don't see anything that would affect us, however 2008-09-06T12:05:57 Doesn't look like much that would affect us 2008-09-06T12:05:58 lol 2008-09-06T12:06:16 Man... 2008-09-06T12:06:37 I want us to grow, I want us to become bigger... And we're kind of doing that by default without really trying. 2008-09-06T12:06:47 Imagine what kind of growth we could have if we really DID try! 2008-09-06T12:07:01 at any rate, while most of the upgrades have already been finished (Renameuser, etc.), there are still a few other things that have yet to be implemented 2008-09-06T12:07:02 I really need to sit down with Ech. 2008-09-06T12:07:55 The two I'd like to still discuss may be found here: http://forums.abxy.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=26585#p413404 (in the Features still pending section) 2008-09-06T12:09:47 First is the rollback group. Do you think it would be a good idea to have one? 2008-09-06T12:10:24 Basically they would have two major functions: The ability to rollback edits using the rollback link, and the ability to have all of their edits automatically patrolled so a sysop does not have to patrol them 2008-09-06T12:11:23 I think so, but we need to have some sort of process for determining who is "trustworthy" enough 2008-09-06T12:11:56 I originally thought of it mainly for the second aspect (the auto patrolling), but since patrolling edits isn't really all that visible to normal users, the addition of some other easy-to-see functionality was needed so that users would not be confused on why we have such a group 2008-09-06T12:13:21 as for trustworthiness, I think that users can nominate themselves on a (much) less formal RfA like page, where an admin can review that and use their discretion to grant the group or deny the request 2008-09-06T12:14:53 This type of system serves two functions: 1) it reduces the amount of bureaucracy (always a good thing), and 2) If the user turns out to be rogue, people cannot blame each other since only one person was responsible for their added group 2008-09-06T12:16:08 Such a system is in place on mediawiki.org, regarding pretty much every type of access (even bureaucrat), and has worked really well 2008-09-06T12:16:26 I am genuinely afraid that I'm going to loose power again. If I blink off, forgiveme. 2008-09-06T12:16:34 again? 2008-09-06T12:16:38 o.0 2008-09-06T12:16:41 Hannah is right over Maryland. 2008-09-06T12:16:47 ah 2008-09-06T12:17:11 anyway, do you think that this is a good idea, or should we make a more formal policy regarding getting such access? 2008-09-06T12:17:47 Wait, 2008-09-06T12:18:00 so we're deciding on whether to provide a rollback link? 2008-09-06T12:18:09 pretty much 2008-09-06T12:18:22 rollback and autopatrol 2008-09-06T12:18:24 Is the current one not visible to normal users? 2008-09-06T12:18:30 only "Undo" 2008-09-06T12:18:35 "Rollback" is sysop-only 2008-09-06T12:18:42 Oh, I didn't realize that. 2008-09-06T12:18:43 OK, 2008-09-06T12:18:46 well... 2008-09-06T12:19:14 It's a double edged sword, right? Normal user will use it to revert vandalism, vandals will use it to revert good edits. 2008-09-06T12:19:40 no, it'd be a seperate group 2008-09-06T12:19:40 Can we enable it for regged users and disable it for anons? 2008-09-06T12:19:45 Oooooooooh, I see. 2008-09-06T12:19:58 that can be assigned and removed via Special:UserRights 2008-09-06T12:20:19 giving it to all registered users has too much potential for abuse 2008-09-06T12:20:28 Exactly. 2008-09-06T12:20:49 that sounds great to me... 2008-09-06T12:20:50 I'm for it, based on what you've described... it would certainly make someone like Melon very happy. 2008-09-06T12:20:56 indeed 2008-09-06T12:21:13 it would make me and Arrow and whoever else patrols edits on recentchanges happy too :P 2008-09-06T12:21:23 True 2008-09-06T12:22:05 Yeah, I don't see why not. 2008-09-06T12:22:06 Anyway, the only thing left to be decided is if we should leave assigning/removing this group bureaucrats-only (like every other group we have), or if we should allow normal sysops to assign/remove the group 2008-09-06T12:22:53 I think we have enough active bureaucrats that it would not be an issue if we left it bureaucrat-only 2008-09-06T12:23:01 i agree 2008-09-06T12:23:16 Skizzerz, you're a bur, right? 2008-09-06T12:23:19 no 2008-09-06T12:23:27 I think you should be quite honestly. 2008-09-06T12:23:33 I tempped myself to promote Arrow, but then removed it 2008-09-06T12:23:42 :P 2008-09-06T12:23:44 lol 2008-09-06T12:23:59 if you have the ability to set yourself, then you should probably just keep it ^_^ 2008-09-06T12:24:03 :P 2008-09-06T12:24:13 how do you think I got my admin at abxy? ;) 2008-09-06T12:24:18 lol 2008-09-06T12:24:26 Alright, I'll kick it off formally. 2008-09-06T12:24:46 ok, but one thing is that all the bcrats should have the requests page on their watchlist 2008-09-06T12:24:49 You do far too much importnt mantenance to the site to not be a crat. 2008-09-06T12:24:57 ok 2008-09-06T12:25:04 All of them you mean 2008-09-06T12:25:33 I meant the one that I'd be creating for the rollback group 2008-09-06T12:25:55 it's less formal than the normal RfA, which also means it'll be easier to overlook 2008-09-06T12:26:11 ok 2008-09-06T12:26:48 OK, then the last thing regarding the 1.13 upgrade is the installation of CheckUser 2008-09-06T12:27:12 when ech tried to install it in 1.11, it blew up. Hopefully, it won't do the same for 1.13 2008-09-06T12:28:09 Prod and I (and whoever else wants to show up) will probably install it one night when activity is low, since it would require backing up the database, etc. 2008-09-06T12:28:29 However, even if we install it fine, we still need to devise a usage policy 2008-09-06T12:29:07 Can you expand on its usage? 2008-09-06T12:29:27 sure 2008-09-06T12:30:23 the extension allows privelaged users to access a special page (Special:CheckUser). On the page itself, you may type in either a username or IP address. The extension will then find either every IP address that that particular user edited with, or every username that was used by that IP address 2008-09-06T12:31:05 It will not only show IPs, but also what browsers they used, etc. 2008-09-06T12:31:34 See http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser#Usage for more information 2008-09-06T12:32:42 The Wikimedia Foundation has this extension installed, but they are very strict about its usage. 2008-09-06T12:33:30 Do we have a particular need for it right now? 2008-09-06T12:33:32 I think it would be best if we adapted most of their policy, and then perhaps add some strategywiki-specific usages, etc. 2008-09-06T12:33:48 Dukeruckley: MrSue would've been a good case to use it for 2008-09-06T12:33:56 yes, true 2008-09-06T12:34:35 there were a few other vandals earlier as well that CheckUser would have been useful for as well 2008-09-06T12:35:05 we'd have to define a very strict set of rules on its use, when it should be allowed and who can use it, and how to determine whether its use is appropriate for whatever reason 2008-09-06T12:35:46 yes, as well as a privacy policy for the end user so that they know that editing the wiki will not cause their personal information to be released publicly provided they follow the rules, etc. 2008-09-06T12:35:51 I have no strong opinion about it either way. 2008-09-06T12:35:57 As for actual implementation, there are two methods: 2008-09-06T12:36:29 1) Grant it to every bcrat. Bcrats will then have the responsiblity to check the log every so often to make sure nobody is abusing the tool. 2008-09-06T12:37:24 2) Make it a seperate group. Since bcrats could just give the group to themselves anyway, this is not that far off from #1. However, having a seperate group means that there is the added responsibility of knowing that the tool is indeed restricted and that it should only be used according to policy 2008-09-06T12:38:05 Since it's quite difficult to become a bureaucrat without being trusted anyway, from an administration standpoint it does not matter which method we use 2008-09-06T12:38:35 Why does this issue feel like a bigm can or worms...? 2008-09-06T12:39:05 However, from an end user standpoint, would you feel safer knowing that every bureaucrat could discover your personal details (IP, etc.), or would you feel safer knowing that only two or so can access it? 2008-09-06T12:39:42 It's what you state because users that come over from en.wikipedia are overly anal when it comes to this >_> 2008-09-06T12:40:03 * Skizzerz tbh, doesn't think that it is all that big of a deal 2008-09-06T12:40:06 how so? 2008-09-06T12:40:14 eventually, if we get large, our users will be the same way 2008-09-06T12:40:32 * Dukeruckley modifies "if" to "when" 2008-09-06T12:40:36 Yeah, I don't either. I mean, ok, a sysop could detemrine my IP and what browser I use. So what? 2008-09-06T12:40:48 lol, right Duke ;) 2008-09-06T12:41:04 all the bcrats are currently the most trusted members of the community, so adding the ability for them to find out an IP address on top of renaming users, etc. isn't all that much 2008-09-06T12:42:11 anyway, I think that just letting all bcrats have it without having to modify their own group membership would be the most sane thing to do. If later on the community gets anal and decides they don't like it, we can always change it 2008-09-06T12:42:20 Yeah, I'd say from a beauracracy point of view, it's easier to go with #1. 2008-09-06T12:42:55 so, that's all I had to talk about. And now, I'll be afk for a bit 2008-09-06T12:43:05 ok, thanks very much Skizzerz. 2008-09-06T12:43:08 Thank you too Duke. 2008-09-06T12:47:14 sure