From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3CA91381F3 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5B56E0B8C; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:27:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02995E0ADA for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [130.149.91.41] (shishapangma.kbs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.91.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 738E133EDED for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:27:57 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52669972.6010304@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 17:27:46 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 SeaMonkey/2.21 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] OT: user-developer/privileges in IRC References: <20131020141538.1cfd7b3d@gentoo.org> <5263C9C6.6010709@gentoo.org> <105901382271553@web25h.yandex.ru> <5263CB10.9020908@gentoo.org> <113051382272012@web25h.yandex.ru> <5263E4F1.10804@gentoo.org> <5263E953.4030400@gentoo.org> <5263EB44.8060301@gentoo.org> <20131022015317.426.qmail@stuge.se> <20131022031901.7678.qmail@stuge.se> <52663F25.8000804@gentoo.org> <20131022165512.06ccf5bf@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 1b676d6a-97fd-47d8-a3a0-05fe1ba73e52 X-Archives-Hash: c4b9f58b0739785ea5326d6ad66f4299 Dirkjan Ochtman schrieb: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM, yac wrote: >> Now I wonder if the +m on IRC was set proactively or reactively. If the >> former it could be worth a try to -m. > Yeah, I kind of feel it should be -m, as well. If need be, we can be > more proactive about kickbanning people (ops enough, after all). We had -m for a short period this year already. AFAIR users then came into the channel and asked support or ebuild development questions, so it was reverted to +m. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn