W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: IRC logging

From: Gavin Sharp <gavin.sharp@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:41:26 -0400
Message-ID: <3d1fb26e0806220941o5fa45b5bwbe897d1e61e9999d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
>>Unfortunately no, but so far it's the best we've got available to us.
>>It's always possible to fill in any gaps from other's personal IRC logs;
>>it's quite simple for Krijn to insert them if someone sends them to him.
>
> Many would regard this as serious breach of protocol, unless the people
> whose conversations have been logged in the logger bot's absence approve
> of that explicitly for the occasion for various reasons; unreasonable as
> that may seem.

It does seem quite unreasonable. Why do you think it would be a
"serious breach of protocol"? Which protocol? Making approval of
logging contingent on the presence of the bot in channel seems rather
arbitrary. Why not just say that approval for logging is implicit for
anyone present in the channel, at any time? If the decision is made to
log the channel, I don't see why it should matter whether it is logged
directly to the web by the bot, or via someone else's private logs
which are later published (e.g. if the bot is offline due to network
issues).

Gavin
Received on Sunday, 22 June 2008 16:42:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:26 GMT