Re: IRC logging

* Gavin Sharp wrote:
>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).

I wasn't giving my opinion, I was sharing my experience that, just be-
cause some IRC channel has public logs, that everybody automatically
approves of complementing the logs using private logs gathered when the
normal logger was absent--and it is therefore wise to either ensure the
continuous presence of it, or explicitly ask for participants approval
when necessary.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Monday, 23 June 2008 19:36:06 UTC