We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Bryce
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
-mental
mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature. I also agree that the logs can be valuable. What if we have them logged and internally searchable, but only accessible to devs?
-Josh
Quoting "Joshua A. Andler" <joshua@...533...>:
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature.
I can sympathize, as I've definitely made a few regrettable comments over the years which are in the logs. However, it's a price I'm willing to pay for the sake of public accountability in Inkscape's development process.
I also agree that the logs can be valuable. What if we have them logged and internally searchable, but only accessible to devs?
How do we define "devs"?
-mental
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 01:22:26PM -0500, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting "Joshua A. Andler" <joshua@...533...>:
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature.
I can sympathize, as I've definitely made a few regrettable comments over the years which are in the logs. However, it's a price I'm willing to pay for the sake of public accountability in Inkscape's development process.
That's pretty much my feelings too. You can make regrettable comments on the mailing list as well, which is archived and searchable too.
Oh, and for the record, if someone says something that really *does* need to be removed (such as a password or other personal info), the admins do have the ability to edit the logs. (Same with the mailing list.)
Bryce
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 18:04, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature.
This is security through obscurity. I'd suggest GPG if you really want a private conversation (IM clients support it). Or, better yet, don't say things you wouldn't be proud to admit saying ;)
Quoting Lee Braiden <lee_b@...786...>:
This is security through obscurity. I'd suggest GPG if you really want a private conversation (IM clients support it). Or, better yet, don't say things you wouldn't be proud to admit saying ;)
It's also worth noting that there are a lot of folks lurking in #inkscape nowadays -- you really don't know everyone who's listening.
-mental
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 19:34, mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Lee Braiden <lee_b@...786...>:
This is security through obscurity. I'd suggest GPG if you really want a private conversation (IM clients support it). Or, better yet, don't say things you wouldn't be proud to admit saying ;)
It's also worth noting that there are a lot of folks lurking in #inkscape nowadays -- you really don't know everyone who's listening.
Or who is there and logging, and publishing to a website.. so.. if u want something private, start up a "private" (invite only) channel, or say it via GPG...
Craig
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:04:08AM -0700, Joshua A. Andler wrote:
mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature. I also agree that the logs can be valuable. What if we have them logged and internally searchable, but only accessible to devs?
Yeah I'm with you guys, I was a bit disappointed to have to turn them off, since I've also found them handy for catching up on discussions, or searching for past discussions where useful info or decisions were made. (Actually I'm a bit surprised - I had gotten the feeling that most people disliked having the channel logged and that I was in the minority, but it looks like the reverse could be true...)
The issue as I understand it was strictly a privacy one. I guess the idea being that if someone can google your name and find something you said 2 years ago, it could be taken badly or something. The complaint is that this stifles developer discussion on the channel, since you have no idea who might be "looking over your shoulder".
I'd love to see us find a better compromise solution than the current one, so am glad to see this getting discussed in depth. Hopefully Bob can chime in with thoughts on his position as well.
Bryce
I agree that it's not the place for really private discussion, but there are some things that get logged that are still of a "less than want to be googlable" nature.
This appears to be the main argument. The solution, if one distrusts spiders' use of robots.txt, would be to put the logs where no spider can go. Admins will know how to do that.
But if this doesn't suffice, then I have no idea where the argument is because the act of anonymously taking part in IRC is certainly the same as making a log, and some lawyers might even argue, a public log. So the only solution then would be an invited (or named) conference.
I see no meaningful solution between the above two.
Regards, ralf
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 17:53, mental@...3... wrote:
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
Agreed. I must have missed something... is there a particular reason for needing private conversations? Is Inkscape going "open source, but closed process"? Transparancy of development process is a valuable asset, I think. And yes, the ability to track down logs from two years ago, and explain to the community why a certain decision was taken, or why that company's lawsuit is B.S. is pretty important too.
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Lee Braiden wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 18:04:19 +0000 From: Lee Braiden <lee_b@...786...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Jabber logging
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 17:53, mental@...3... wrote:
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
I take it this means the IRC channel was logged too as both are interlinked?
Agreed. I must have missed something... is there a particular reason for needing private conversations?
It is not about need it is about IRC being an instant medium as opposed to email where you usually take a little longer to consider your thoughts amd you can reasonably expect your email messages to the list to be publicallly logged for all to see for a very long time.
Most IRC channels I am familiar with do not bother to log everything but they do occassionally log scheduled meetings and get short highly relevant logs.
Is Inkscape going "open source, but closed process"? Transparancy of development process is a valuable asset, I think.
The sheer scale of discussion makes it very difficult to anyone to keep track of it all. Anything of any significance discussed on IRC or Jabber really should be brought onlist.
It is a total non-sequiter to claim not logging all discussions is some kind of conspiracy to close the process and if you have so little trust in the Inkscape developers we have bigger problems. Keep in mind some useful discussions like those with Xara will largely be kept secret and there will always be offlist conversations which are not logged.
And yes, the ability to track down logs from two years ago, and explain to the community why a certain decision was taken,
We shouldn't need logs for that. Developers should be able to justify their decisions and if a decision can no longer be justfied with any better reason than "we've always done it that way" developers should be willing to accept changes and reconsider things (or stangnate and die).
Commit logs, changelogs, and other documentation need to clearly document coding decision and give a reasonably clear audit trail of who submitted what code. Properly doing a little as you go along is a lot easier than having to trawl massive dicussion logs.
or why that company's lawsuit is B.S. is pretty important too.
What lawsuit?
Having said all that anyone logged in to the channel can log it. I could say I had a reasonable expecation of privacy (not being logged, recorded) based on the fact that other channels are not usually logged but with the knowledge that anyone can log the conversation it is difficult to complain. I would ask one thing, if the channel is going to be official logged please make sure the channel topic (or welcome message) clearly announces this fact.
With more logs and more mailing list traffic it would be really cool if someone was willing to post summary messages or weekly news or the equivalent of kernel traffic. In a way we already get that informally through developers writing about Inkscape in their journals and the bits of news which do regularly get posted to the site but there are probably more aspects of inkscape development which make interesting reading if summarised and presented in a concise way.
I'd prefer if Jabber wasn't logged but anyone can log it with telling us so officially loggin the channel might not be such a bad idea (and I vaguely recall reading about a tool which can parse IRC logs and generate intersting pages based on links posted and other keywords, which sounds kinda cool).
Sincerely
Alan Horkan
Inkscape http://inkscape.org Abiword http://www.abisource.com Dia http://gnome.org/projects/dia/ Open Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org
Alan's Diary http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
--- mental@...3... wrote:
Quoting Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
-mental
Their pretty useful if your in a substantially different timezone from the majority of devs too. I quite often skim read the logs when i first get online just to catch up with whats been going on. If you want a private conversation you can always start a private chat.
I agree with the google bit tho, being that open is not really necessary.
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
On 11/2/05, mental@...3... <mental@...3...> wrote:
Hmm, I always found the logs to be a valuable resource; particularly being searchable via google.
IMO, the Jabber channel is not the place for really private discussion.
Agreed. I think we should revert that, and maybe create a "secret" channel for those who need it instead.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
Bryce Harrington wrote:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Bryce
Oh, my..... You make me sound so terrible! :(
It was only Google with which I really had a problem...
Considering that nothing prevents an individual client from logging the channel anyway, turning off the logs only adds a modicum of privacy. All it does is turn off casual browsing. Analogous to leaving the door open, but closing the screen door.
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever. This would force us to have Happy, Pleasant Thoughts, because Big Brother is watching. We would be restrained from saying something like 'this sucks' when it would otherwise be utterly appropriate.
But, hey, I'm only one person. I don't want to sound petulant, nor I would ever want to have my opinions affect others. What the majority of devs here desire would be fine with me. I can work around it if necessary. I do miss hanging out on the channel, though!
bob
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
It was only Google with which I really had a problem...
Ah, I was wondering if that was the case. You'd specified both initially so I wasn't sure.
What the majority of devs here desire would be fine with me. I can work around it if necessary. I do miss hanging out on the channel, though!
Okay so is this correct that as long as we have the robots.txt preventing google from caching/searching the discussions, you'd feel comfortable being on channel?
Fwiw, even if it's a minority view, I think it's a good issue and one that deserves discussion. Privacy is one of those things that tends to only really be critical when you *are* in the minority, so even if the majority think it's unnecessary I still think it needs to be considered.
My suspicion is that there are probably a number of others who feel the same way you do; you were just motivated enough to actually put in a request. ;-) I'd love to hear some more discussion from this point of view, especially if it sounds like the majority would like to restore logging. Possibly we're missing some important issues.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
It was only Google with which I really had a problem...
Ah, I was wondering if that was the case. You'd specified both initially so I wasn't sure.
What the majority of devs here desire would be fine with me. I can work around it if necessary. I do miss hanging out on the channel, though!
Okay so is this correct that as long as we have the robots.txt preventing google from caching/searching the discussions, you'd feel comfortable being on channel?
Yes, I think this would be fine. We could do this for a while and be watchful to see if it is being abused in any way.
bob
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:14PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
It was only Google with which I really had a problem...
Okay so is this correct that as long as we have the robots.txt preventing google from caching/searching the discussions, you'd feel comfortable being on channel?
Yes, I think this would be fine. We could do this for a while and be watchful to see if it is being abused in any way.
Great, I've sent Doug the request to restore logging but with the robots.txt in place.
Do we also want to delete logs older than 6 months? It sounds like even though we agree the old ones are of limited value, multiple people feel they're still valuable enough to want to make personal copies of them. So keeping them would save some people the trouble of mirroring them.
Bryce
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever.
Kees had the suggestion of maybe doing an automatic deletion of logs older than 6-months. This is consistent with EFF's advice about limiting document retention, and would also address the concern that the commentary would be around forever.
While I think old logs may still have some use, from the comments in this thread it sounds like the value of a given day's log drops off fairly quickly, so ones older than 6 months may have dropped in usefulness enough that their loss would be a small cost.
Bryce
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 15:47 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever.
Kees had the suggestion of maybe doing an automatic deletion of logs older than 6-months. This is consistent with EFF's advice about limiting document retention, and would also address the concern that the commentary would be around forever.
While I think old logs may still have some use, from the comments in this thread it sounds like the value of a given day's log drops off fairly quickly, so ones older than 6 months may have dropped in usefulness enough that their loss would be a small cost.
I could live with this compromise.
-mental
On 11/2/05, MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> wrote:
I could live with this compromise.
Me too, but I'd still like to have a personal copy of all logs from the very beginning, if possible.
-- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:25:25PM -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 11/2/05, MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> wrote:
I could live with this compromise.
Me too, but I'd still like to have a personal copy of all logs from the very beginning, if possible.
I'll give fair warning before putting in any requests to delete things, if we decide to go this route.
Btw, with the robots.txt file in place, I found that it's now impossible to recursively snag all the logs. Here's a quick hack perl script I did to get around that limitation so I could get last month's logs:
#!/usr/bin/perl my $day = 31; while ($day > 0) { `wget http://inkscape.gristle.org/2005-10-$day.txt%60; $day = sprintf("%02d", $day-1); }
Bryce
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:30:18PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:25:25PM -0400, bulia byak wrote:
On 11/2/05, MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> wrote:
I could live with this compromise.
Me too, but I'd still like to have a personal copy of all logs from the very beginning, if possible.
I'll give fair warning before putting in any requests to delete things, if we decide to go this route.
Btw, with the robots.txt file in place, I found that it's now impossible to recursively snag all the logs. Here's a quick hack perl script I did to get around that limitation so I could get last month's logs:
#!/usr/bin/perl my $day = 31; while ($day > 0) { `wget http://inkscape.gristle.org/2005-10-$day.txt%60; $day = sprintf("%02d", $day-1); }
Or if you want the whole shebang, you can make wget ignore robots.txt by putting "robots = off" in .wgetrc, and then using wget -m. (Thanks AC)
Bryce
On 11/3/05, bulia byak <buliabyak@...400...> wrote:
On 11/2/05, MenTaLguY <mental@...3...> wrote:
I could live with this compromise.
Me too, but I'd still like to have a personal copy of all logs from the very beginning, if possible.
If it is possible to send IRC log digest once a day to a special mailing list (IIRC, GStreamer devs do it), why shouldn't it be possible to do the same for Jabber log?
Alexandre
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 15:47 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever.
Kees had the suggestion of maybe doing an automatic deletion of logs older than 6-months. This is consistent with EFF's advice about limiting document retention, and would also address the concern that the commentary would be around forever.
While I think old logs may still have some use, from the comments in this thread it sounds like the value of a given day's log drops off fairly quickly, so ones older than 6 months may have dropped in usefulness enough that their loss would be a small cost.
While I don't really care that much about this issue, I'd say that lawyers always love not having data, but I'm not sure that is a good thing. When they're trying to make the PBS special "100 years of Inkscape" what will they use for our history? Yes, they'll have a holograph interview with Bryce talking about "the great Cairo change of 2006", but what defines our history?
I'd be for keeping the logs, I don't mind them being searchable either, but I don't care that much either way.
--Ted
I don't care at all either... Communication is like that... you gotta consider the place where you are. Not that it should cause any big worries, 'couse once you are being sincere you can always explain yourself. And about politeness or something like that, the fact you had been unpolite, in a place people allows you to be so can never be taken badly... The unique harm you can get being unpolite is hurting the expectations of people that doesen't expect you to be so... in that case the error is yours... and is also no big thing...
But anyway, I can get along with any decision you take... =)
Now excuse me, 'couse I'm going to the chat room. Once the cameras are off I'm gonna take of my clothes and say dirty things... woooOoOwW... hehe
thank you, Iuri
On 11/3/05, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 15:47 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 04:45:30PM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever.
Kees had the suggestion of maybe doing an automatic deletion of logs older than 6-months. This is consistent with EFF's advice about limiting document retention, and would also address the concern that the commentary would be around forever.
While I think old logs may still have some use, from the comments in this thread it sounds like the value of a given day's log drops off fairly quickly, so ones older than 6 months may have dropped in usefulness enough that their loss would be a small cost.
While I don't really care that much about this issue, I'd say that lawyers always love not having data, but I'm not sure that is a good thing. When they're trying to make the PBS special "100 years of Inkscape" what will they use for our history? Yes, they'll have a holograph interview with Bryce talking about "the great Cairo change of 2006", but what defines our history?
I'd be for keeping the logs, I don't mind them being searchable either, but I don't care that much either way.
--Ted-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBDaccaLE335pRPGp0RAmZZAKDpumPf6Y4uuRh+xNC/XQI2z209kQCeP3Sa C759V19lUfptDifmb7KA+hQ= =LqWE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Bob Jamison wrote:
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 16:45:30 -0600 From: Bob Jamison <rwjj@...127...> To: Bryce Harrington <bryce@...961...>, inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Inkscape-devel] Jabber logging
Bryce Harrington wrote:
We've turned off logging on the Jabber channel, at Ishmal's request. He felt it would give a better sense of privacy for discussions if there were no logs. The logs up until Oct 30 will be kept.
We have also added a robots.txt file to prevent google searching/caching of the old logs.
Oh, my..... You make me sound so terrible! :(
It was only Google with which I really had a problem...
Considering that nothing prevents an individual client from logging the channel anyway, turning off the logs only adds a modicum of privacy. All it does is turn off casual browsing. Analogous to leaving the door open, but closing the screen door.
I only had trouble with the Orwellian practice that every word we ever type belongs to society, and that it will be Googlecached forever. This would force us to have Happy, Pleasant Thoughts, because Big Brother is watching. We would be restrained from saying something like 'this sucks' when it would otherwise be utterly appropriate.
"The innocent have nothing to fear."
I agree with Bob, I also find it very creepy. Things can very easily be taken out of context. It is somewhat stifling but sometimes it is good to be reminded of the need to be polite and get along, politeness is cheap. I am reasonably careful about what I say on mailing lists because I am very much aware of how long this stuff hangs around for. I also talk lots in the hope of drowing out anything contraversial through the sheer volume of other things I say. :)
But again the reality of Echelon is very creepy. Privacy is dead.
- Alan
But, hey, I'm only one person. I don't want to sound petulant, nor I would ever want to have my opinions affect others. What the majority of devs here desire would be fine with me. I can work around it if necessary. I do miss hanging out on the channel, though!
bob
participants (14)
-
unknown＠example.com -
Alan Horkan -
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
bulia byak -
Craig Bradney -
Iuriatan Muniz -
John Cliff -
Joshua A. Andler -
Lee Braiden -
MenTaLguY -
Ralf Stephan -
Ted Gould