On 09/20/2016 10:19 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
On 09/19/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:32:22 +0200 Brian Exelbierd <bex@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:One thing the involvement of these groups brings is new people and new energy. Even if these groups only started to be involved as part of a weekly issues review we may be able to learn more from the "after action reports." I also still feel very strongly that we need after action reporting, as has been suggested by jflory, amongst others. I believe we should be able to figure out what actions have been taken and by whom.We recently switched out irc bot over to using ChanTracker: https://github.com/ncoevoet/ChanTracker it keeps track of mode changes, but I don't think it has any easy reporting capability and things can be annotated when it's used. I guess 'after action' reviews could be helpful, but do we want to call out people again in public? say there was a 15minute quiet for a user, do we want to go over that and note the specific user in public logs and such? I'm good with learning how better to handle things, but wall of shame I am not sure about.As implemented elsewhere, it should be a private page maybe on the wiki with access allowed only for current ops. So it wouldn't be a public wall of shame. ~m
Sorry if I wasn't clear before. I also meant that the wiki page / "place of reporting" would be a private page only visible to channel operators / SIG members and other relevant people. This has worked well so far for the ArchWomen community as far as I'm aware.
-- Cheers, Justin W. Flory jflory7@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ council-discuss mailing list -- council-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to council-discuss-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
