--- Log opened Wed Jul 03 00:33:19 2002
00:33 <+logger> logging started
00:47 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o nop] by mids
00:54 < UnDeRToW> hi
00:54 <@mids> hi
01:01 <@nop> ok
01:01 <@nop> hi
01:01 <@nop> welcome
01:01 <@nop> to the 5th meeting I believe
01:01 <@mids> 7th
01:02 <@nop> really
01:02 <@nop> ok
01:02 <@mids> http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
01:02 <@nop> wilde you have anonymail
01:02 <@nop> ok
01:03 <@nop> iip 1.1 rc2 will be released pending a few doc changes and me submitting a couple of technical docs for merging with docs
01:03 <@nop> umm, cs and I will work on transforming inform to work with latest version
01:04 <@nop> and we have had a few people try out some security checks on IIP
01:04 <@nop> unfortunately with no success
01:04 <@nop> but
01:04 <@nop> that's the spirit
01:04 <@nop> ;)
01:04 <@nop> anyway
01:05 <@nop> this is not much of a meeting today, but if anyone has anything to add please feel free at the questions part
01:05 <@nop> so... mids, do you have anything
01:05 <@mids> yes
01:05 <@mids> I would like to have a public discussion about the pro's and con's of bots in the public channels
01:06 <@mids> with ArdVark and some others I have had an argument about that
01:06 <@mids> everybody has its personal ideas
01:06 <@mids> and they aren't all compatible
01:06 <@mids> but since we are not here to censor everything
01:06 <@mids> lets discuss
01:06 <@mids> allow me to state the current issue
01:07 <@mids> unless someone already wants to add something
01:07 <@mids> 3 2 1 0
01:07 <@mids> ok
01:07 <@mids> in #anonymous (and #iip and #help) we have had a few infobots
01:07 <@mids> Herod, camabot and now visix
01:08 <@mids> personally I dont see any good in those things.. since they seem to be only 'abused' for channel flooding
01:08 <@mids> but I understand that my vision on that is biased
01:08 <@mids> based on years of IRC trauma's :)
01:09 < Kyl3> yes but there are some bots that are useful
01:09 <@mids> Where are those bots good for?
01:09 <@mids> .
01:09 < ArdVark> what is defined as channel flooding?
01:09 < UnDeRToW> for what?
01:10 < Kyl3> there are some bots that are used for channel protection
01:11 <@mids> like?
01:11 <@mids> ArdVark: good one... anybody?
01:11 < Kyl3> like my eggdrop on DALnet
01:11 < UnDeRToW> but here is not necesary channel protection
01:11 <@mids> I would say: filling the communication channel with data
01:11 < Kyl3> all custom flood protection
01:11 < UnDeRToW> at least now
01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: true, but with Trent, I don't think that is a real issue here
01:12 < ArdVark> excuse me but please define filling the communication channel with data
01:12 <@mids> re flooding: but I agree that it is very personal what is seen as flood
01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: what is flood in your wording?
01:12 <@mids> communcation channel is irc channel / query window / message window
01:13 <@mids> data = ascii characters on itc
01:13 < Kyl3> so Trent has channel protections built into it?
01:13 <@mids> and filling is putting too much into it
01:13 <@mids> Kyl3: no, not like you mean...
01:13 < ArdVark> no I have seen users place huge paragraphs of words in a channel without any negative response; perhaps a friend of an OP
01:14 < UnDeRToW> I think the best way to control that is some @ on public channels that only go up when a problem appear
01:14 <@mids> ArdVark: big pastes (what is big) is flood to imho
01:14 <@mids> and jesus stating all the bible chapters is too... imho again
01:15 < ArdVark> however mids you have offered no negative responses to some individuals; friends of your perhaps?
01:15 < ArdVark> who paste large paragraphs
01:15 <@mids> maybe friends
01:15 <@mids> maybe I was away
01:15 <@nop> tell you what
01:15 <@nop> the best way
01:15 <@nop> to determine this
01:15 <@nop> is to let ircd determine it
01:15 <@nop> ircd has a flood limit
01:15 <@nop> and if they exceed that
01:15 <@nop> it will kick them
01:16 <@nop> other than that, if you're not intentionally doing it
01:16 <@nop> then what's the problem
01:16 <@mids> still, you can flood very easilly
01:16 <@nop> yes
01:16 <@nop> but intentional is obvious
01:16 <@nop> so if it's intentional
01:16 <@nop> we handle it
01:16 <@nop> if it's not
01:16 <@nop> then go on about our business
01:16 < ArdVark> no too easy to decide someone is intentionally flooding nop
01:16 <@nop> no need for unnecessary drama
01:16 <@nop> but
01:16 <@nop> it's easy to ask people to talk to the bot in a private channel
01:17 <@nop> and if they are belligerent
01:17 <@nop> then most likely you have probable cause of their intentions
01:17 < ArdVark> I disagree
01:17 <@nop> ok
01:17 <@nop> ardvark
01:17 <@nop> please define then
01:17 <@nop> because if we can set boundaries
01:18 <@nop> this argument will be quickly over
01:18 < ArdVark> I have no problem with your ircd flood control notion; I have a big problem with an OP doing the "protecting"
01:19 < ArdVark> OP's may have friends that they permit to "flood"; while  others are dealt with differently
01:19 <@nop> yes
01:19 <@mids> I think that your problem is having OPs... 
01:19 <@nop> the biased issue
01:19 < CyberLOK1> sorry just saw msg I have been at work
01:19 < CyberLOK1> did I miss meeting?
01:19 < ArdVark> yes my ultimate concern is  OP's because of the  potential to limit  speech mids
01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: talking about flooding right now
01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: logs: http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
01:19 < CyberLOK1> mids thanks
01:20 <@mids> ArdVark: I totally agree on the theoretical side of that
01:20 <@nop> well what about an agent
01:20 < ArdVark> I will continually express my dissent about that issue
01:20 <@mids> but on the practical side... without ops, how to deal with problem users that deny others to speak? (by flooding)
01:22 < ArdVark> OP's are a threat to free speech, end of statement; deciding on flooding  by OP's is not objective
01:22 <@mids> then please tell me how you see #anonymous without OPs.. using current available technology
01:23 <@mids> everything is fine...
01:23 <@nop> agent to set a standard
01:23 <@mids> then 10 trouble guys enter
01:23 <@nop> for flooding
01:23 <@mids> and start spamming crap
01:23 <@mids> what is your solution ArdVark ?
01:24 < ArdVark> spam is an emotionally laden term used to point out speech other's, perhaps  most others do  not like; free speech is not just about speech I like
01:24 <@mids> so these 10 guys paste #####'s with the maximum rate that the ircd allows
01:25 <@mids> resulting in nobdy beeing able to see any text
01:25 < UnDeRToW> but an oper can go up when a problem occur
01:25 < UnDeRToW> and the rest of the time down
01:25 < ArdVark> and the point is  that these guys  are  going to remain forever?
01:25 <@mids> UnDeRToW: that is how it is now
01:26 < UnDeRToW> i know
01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if someone do a bad thing
01:26 < UnDeRToW> or an oper do bad thing
01:26 <@mids> ArdVark: why not.. they have a botnet with 100 t3 connections
01:26 < UnDeRToW> talk and he/she know his error
01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if persist
01:26 < UnDeRToW> no more @
01:27 < ArdVark> well I sense a real threat to free speech concern surrounding this  issue
01:27 < UnDeRToW> but at least now any problem related with that, isnt it?
01:28 <@mids> okay, I have a proposal
01:28 <@mids> maybe we should try a period without any operators in #anonymous
01:29 <@mids> few weeks
01:29 <@mids> and see how it goes
01:29 <@mids> fix topic to something static
01:29 <@mids> channel mode +tn
01:29 <@mids> and everybody removed from the trent access list
01:29 <@nop> you know
01:29 <@nop> this is really not fair
01:29 <@nop> people are missing the point
01:30 <@nop> IRC has a ruleset, and channel control and all this other shit
01:30 <@nop> I understand the nature of freedom of speech
01:30 <@nop> but we also have to have some sort of defense 
01:30 <@nop> flooding can cause problems on networks
01:30 <@nop> etc
01:30 < wilde> but what's the problem really? anyone is free to open a new channel and get ops? So why is ops a bad thing in #anonymous? Open a new channel and speak freely
01:30 <@nop> you can't say that's speech, really, it's 1's and 0's being abused
01:30 < ArdVark> I disagree nop
01:30 <@nop> the founders of specific channels, they have a choice to control the channel
01:31 <@nop> if they want the #freespeech channel
01:31 <@nop> then so be it
01:31 <@nop> because then
01:31 <@nop> you can flood it
01:31 <@nop> all you want
01:31 <@nop> and call it #freespeech
01:31 <@nop> the technology provides the freedom
01:31 <@nop> but the channel holders might not
01:31 <@nop> and this is the design
01:31 <@nop> you have choices
01:31 < ArdVark> I must express my complete dissent officially 
01:31 <@nop> and all the choices range
01:31 <@nop> and that's the freedom of choice
01:32 <@nop> is that if you say I disagree, I can't say, no you must agree
01:32 <@nop> but in a founder's channel
01:32 <@nop> I can say
01:32 <@nop> we take this as flooding
01:32 <@nop> we're not an op on every channel
01:32 <@nop> and if there is concern
01:32 <@nop> then there is concern
01:32 <@nop> but #anonymous is public
01:32 <@nop> which requires some governing of very basic rules
01:32 <@nop> because everyone must have a chance to speak
01:32 <@nop> but flooding, interpreted or not
01:33 <@nop> is not going to be tolerated
01:33 < ArdVark> well again I dissent
01:33 <@nop> that just wouldn't make sense
01:33 <@nop> it's like saying
01:33 <@nop> I have the freedom to kill 10 people
01:33 < UnDeRToW> but nop, and all people without op and if someone start flooding just go up and fix the prob
01:33 < UnDeRToW> and then go down
01:33 <@nop> yes
01:33 <@nop> that's fair
01:33 <@nop> but
01:33 <@nop> the interpretation
01:33 <@nop> is the challenge
01:33 <@mids> UnDeRToW: thats what we all minus ardvark are saying...
01:33 < ArdVark> because I was accused of causing flooding when someone else pasted large paragraphs into channel previously was not admonished
01:34 < CyberLOK1> are we tring to justify flooding?
01:34 <@nop> I agree with Ardvark's view in the sense that he may be executing his free speach
01:34 <@nop> speech
01:34 <@nop> but the interpretation seems to be biased
01:34 <@nop> and to solve that
01:34 <@nop> we need to have a standard
01:34 < UnDeRToW> mids i know
01:34 <@nop> but we can't just allow flooding
01:34 < ArdVark> OP's are inconsistent in their  approach; let friends do stuff and  others  not
01:35 < CyberLOK1> how about a control on the number of people and a throttle of max sends per second
01:35 < CyberLOK1> this way it would be impossible to flood people for to long and it would really do nothing
01:35 <@nop> hmm
01:36 <@nop> it's not really an issue that much
01:36 <@nop> and we might be a little sensitve
01:36 < CyberLOK1> ArdVark remove the human part then
01:36 <@nop> because we're used to public irc
01:36 <@nop> and the biased ness is an issue
01:37 <@nop> I say 
01:37 <@nop> that unless it's seriously obvious script kiddie flooding
01:37 <@nop> then we just leave it be
01:37 <@nop> and at the most
01:37 <@nop> we can ask questions or ask politely if they will talk to the bot in a private channel
01:37 < ArdVark> problem with flooding is what if no one  is talking in channel?  suddenly I just type a lot; since no one else is talking I am not  infringing  on anyone else's speech
01:37 <@nop> no you're not
01:37 <@nop> and you should be allowed
01:37 < ArdVark> well that was the issue the other day
01:38 <@mids> aprogas asked you to stop
01:38 <@mids> but you didnt see it
01:38 <@mids> because of the bot output I think...
01:38 <@nop> well
01:38 <@nop> I think if aprogas asks to stop
01:38 <@nop> he should do it privately
01:38 <@nop> then he should see it
01:38 <@nop> unless he's running certain irc clients
01:38 <@mids> depends
01:38 <@nop> but that's another issue
01:38 <@mids> lot of people dont check private messages
01:38 < ArdVark> he cann do it privately, but I sense  I need not stop because  of his/her request
01:39 < ArdVark> if no one  else is talking
01:39 <@mids> he was talking
01:39 < CyberLOK1> mids ignorance is not an excuss
01:39 < CyberLOK1> sorry spelling
01:39 <@mids> now you dont want to stop
01:39 <@mids> how much talking is needed for you to stop?
01:39 < ArdVark> once again we have  Aprogas a friend of  an OP being  supported by that OP
01:39 < ArdVark> therein lies the  problem
01:40 <@mids> I understand your point
01:40 < ArdVark> a threat to me who is no friend to the OP's and my speech
01:40 <@mids> but I dont see a solution, except that you create your own channel with your rules
01:41 < ArdVark> well why tell me to create one, why not tell your frend instead?
01:41 <@mids> we created #anonymous
01:41 < CyberLOK1> um how about 1 bot in each created channel that is oped.. then when a script kiddie flood is detected it protects the channel
01:41 < ArdVark> see how it goes back to problem with OP's and their friends
01:41 < CyberLOK1> then there is no more issue... no one is opped only 1 person and its not even a person so no one can claim biad
01:41 < CyberLOK1> bias
01:42 <@nop> but the programmer writes the biasedness
01:42 < ArdVark> right
01:42 < CyberLOK1> nop basic rules
01:42 < CyberLOK1> if channel == lines per sec
01:42 < CyberLOK1> if this many people are comming and going
01:42 <@nop> hmm, mids can trent do this
01:42 < CyberLOK1> then
01:42 < CyberLOK1> lock channel kick out people flooding above this much
01:42 < CyberLOK1> timeout at predefined
01:43 <@mids> nop: technically yes, but I dont want trent to snoop on all channels
01:43 <@nop> good point
01:43 <@nop> what about just for #anonymous
01:43 < CyberLOK1> well it would eliminate this "bias" 
01:43 <@nop> which is "THE" pub channel
01:43 < CyberLOK1> I mean
01:43 < CyberLOK1> lets face a fact here
01:44 < CyberLOK1> you take risk running to the street shouting your words
01:44 < CyberLOK1> here you risk maybe we all are out to get you and record what you say
01:45 < CyberLOK1> risk is all of life and if they can not deal with "snooping" (which its not but hey) then tell um to get out thier banners and head to the street
01:45 <@nop> no
01:45 <@nop> no snooping
01:45 <@nop> we don't want snooping
01:45 <@nop> the argument is not of this
01:45 < CyberLOK1> nop anyone and anything can snoop
01:45 <@nop> it's that #anonymous is a pub channel
01:46 <@nop> what I'm saying is
01:46 <@nop> we're not going to abuse the power of trent
01:46 <@nop> and become the gov't
01:46 < CyberLOK1> ahhh
01:46 < CyberLOK1> kk well
01:46 <@nop> that's hardly called for
01:46 < CyberLOK1> we can form "public" channel groups
01:46 < CyberLOK1> this consists of channels formed by people
01:46 < CyberLOK1> who dont want ops anymore but want thier channel protected
01:47 < CyberLOK1> and there for it would be a self election
01:47 < CyberLOK1> an "option" 
01:47 < CyberLOK1> this way no one choice is taken away
01:47 < CyberLOK1> and you could use trent to protect the anonymous channel as an example
01:47 <@nop> just trent for #anonymous because #anonymous is founded as the Public channel on IIP
01:47 < CyberLOK1> others can leave it to op wars and other such nonsense
01:47 <@nop> the rest is not trent's duty
01:48 <@nop> look
01:48 < CyberLOK1> nop I was thinking
01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want to form a channel 
01:48 < CyberLOK1> but I myself dont want to deal with ops and yada
01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want just like you guys freedom of speech
01:48 <@nop> ardvark I understand your concern, it makes complete sense, but without a solution or idea from you, I need to know what can be done
01:48 < CyberLOK1> unless I would be allowed to run a bot in my channel
01:48 <@nop> do you have a proposal
01:48 <@nop> and/or can you offer one by the next meeting
01:49 < ArdVark> well if you are using trent to "control" #anonymous, can you please always place in the topic or have an intro for each user?
01:49 < ArdVark> to let them know of this
01:49 <@nop> I don't think we will do this
01:49 <@nop> but if we could have a proposal from you
01:49 <@nop> by next meeting
01:49 <@nop> on what ideas you think would be acceptable
01:50 <@nop> then that can be accepted and we can work it out so that it make everyone happy
01:50 <@nop> we are just trying to protect the network as well
01:50 <@nop> and that's the stance I'm coming from
01:50 <@nop> so that everyone can use it efficiently
01:50 < CyberLOK1> foofd time 
01:50 <@nop> and I want to respect the freedom of speech as well
01:50 < ArdVark> nop I believe that must be worked out  over time, I cannot promise in some business-like  fashion a solution for next time
01:50 < CyberLOK1> here here nop 
01:50 <@mids> okay, thanks for dropping by CyberLOK1 
01:50 <@nop> ok
01:51 <@nop> that's fair
01:51 < CyberLOK1> np mids
01:51 <@nop> but let's just work it out
01:51 <@nop> then
01:51 <@nop> the hard fact is
01:51 <@nop> we're humans
01:51 <@nop> and a community
01:51 <@nop> so it' s a challenge to not want to control
01:52 <@nop> but I need a pseudo-utopia idea, but someone has to defend the utopia as well
01:52 < ArdVark> no too many people are used to irc OP's where if you dissent with them you are kicked
01:52 <@nop> ok
01:52 < ArdVark> so if I dissent with an OP kicking someone
01:52 <@nop> I understand the complain
01:52 <@nop> complaint
01:52 <@nop> and I believe that this can be a problem
01:52 <@nop> and that no one is perfect
01:52 <@nop> so what we can do is set up a standard
01:52 <@nop> I think that mids idea
01:52 <@nop> of no ops
01:52 <@nop> in #anonymous
01:52 <@nop> for a while
01:52 <@nop> might be a workable solution
01:52 < ArdVark> actually nop most people  will  not  complain, they will just  leave and not  return
01:53 <@nop> ok
01:53 <@nop> well
01:53 <@nop> no ops for 2 weeks
01:53 <@nop> in #anonymous
01:53 <@mids> I still propose no ops for 2 weeks
01:53 <@nop> and the only, and strictly only time
01:53 <@nop> is if there is without a doubt a malicious attack on #anonymous
01:53 <@nop> by a script kiddie
01:53 <@mids> no
01:53 <@mids> no ops is no ops
01:53 <@nop> ok
01:53 <@mids> then you have to do it right
01:53 <@nop> fair enough
01:54 <@nop> no ops
01:54 <@nop> two weeks
01:54 <@nop> in #anonymous
01:54 <@nop> agreed?
01:54 < UnDeRToW> not agree with no ops
01:54 <@nop> all say I
01:54 <@nop> we can vote can't we
01:54 < UnDeRToW> one op only for big problems
01:54 <@nop> that can't be done
01:54 <@nop> it would still have biased
01:54 <@nop> it's just 2 weeks
01:54 <@nop> worse case scenario we deal with it
01:54 <@nop> and measure it out
01:55 <@nop> and say
01:55 <@nop> is it worth it
01:55 <@nop> in 2 weeks
01:55 <@nop> ardvark
01:55 <@mids> it would be an experiment, maybe with very interesting results
01:55 <@nop> will that satisfy you for this temporarily till we can look at better options
01:55 < ArdVark> OK
01:55 <@nop> ok
01:55 <@nop> done
01:55 < ArdVark> thanks 
01:55 <@mids> great
01:56 <@mids> now what topic do we use?
01:56 <@nop> the one that's up there
01:56 <@nop> ;)
01:56 <@mids> ok, do you remove everyone from the access list?
01:58 <@nop> can you please mids
01:58 <@nop> for two weeks
02:00 < ArdVark> however I really do not think we have resolved the issue  of what is flooding; and the implications therein
02:00 < ArdVark> if you want to talk about what  the network can handle
02:00 < ArdVark> cause I understand programs have  limitations
02:01 <@mids> (#anonymous accesslist is clear)
02:01 < ArdVark> but have you ever  been in #anonymous when the conversation is  fast a furious
02:01 < ArdVark> some people words pass by without being readable for me
02:01 <@mids> yes, then I think that the normal typing exceeds the ircd floodrate :)
02:02 < ArdVark> how is that different from so called spam or flooding?
02:02 < AgentDelta> a hypothetical question, i hope i'm not out of line... if there was some kind of strong authentication system to authenticate to a known anonymous user with a micropayment account attached so users pay for breaking specified behavior, would that address flooding concerns? how difficult would it be to integrate such an api into the system?
02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: like hashcash for instance?
02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: not.. spam is also personal judged
02:03 < wilde> Freedom of speech isn't equal to forcing people to listen, #anonymous is general place for chat, but if you want more freedom you should start your channel and discuss what you want and with as many sentences as you like per second
02:03 <@mids> s/agentdelta/ardvark/
02:03 < ArdVark> I agree mids, spam is personal
02:04 <@mids> AgentDelta: and so it flood... even the flood that the ircd denies... some human picked the values for it
02:04 < Neo> wilde: yeah, then you OP your own rules in your own channel.
02:04 < ArdVark> look, I have no problem with people  having their  own channels with their own rules; so be it
02:04 < ArdVark> #anonymous was started as I remember for anonymous free speech
02:05 < AgentDelta> if the channels aren't owned, i guess you have the tragedy of the commons 
02:05 < ArdVark> commons is not a tragedy
02:06 < AgentDelta> no, commons isn't a tragedy, but it doesn't have a specific owner who looks out for it 
02:06 < AgentDelta> and litter and other artifacts of this absence of an owner is called the tragedy
02:07 < Neo> the commons can become a tragedy, and that is why we are talking about how to deal with people who flood the system and could turn #anonymous into nothing but a flood zone.
02:07 < AgentDelta> ok
02:07 < ArdVark> you mean like someone to be "accountable" AgentDelta?  Using the economic view of life
02:08 < AgentDelta> no, "accountable" implies accountability to some outside power. if i own this piece of land, i'm going to keep it in good shape for my own selfish reasons
02:08 < Neo> AgentDelta: no, accountable could mean accountable to internal users of the system.
02:09 < Neo> We were thinking about forum mentors for DC forums.
02:09 < Neo> They are not all powerfull channel dictators,
02:09 < Neo> but if they censor people, they will be held accountable to the users of the system.
02:09 < AgentDelta> explain
02:09 < Neo> So if mids is the op of #anonymous and he abuses op power, then he can get removed of his status,
02:10 < Neo> and he also suffers reputation damage.
02:10 < Neo> So someone that is impartial controls true FLOODING and real abuse of the system by users.
02:10 < AgentDelta> ok, so you have some stated standard of under what strict circumstances someone could be silenced, and if someone uses op powers demonstrably outside of the listed guidelines, he loses op status?
02:10 < wilde> Actually I think this discussion is really not a big thing, everyone is free to start their own moderated/unmoderated channels, if this is a battle of the #anonymous channel I think most users agree that this general chat channel is best without flooding or promotion of child porn for example, so some minimal control is needed
02:11 < ArdVark> I disagree wilde
02:12 <@mids> AgentDelta: yes, but now the channel founders are free to choose their standards
02:12 < AgentDelta> absent some mechanism to establish order, the most powerful takes control over any place, physical or virtual, and i submit in an irc channel, flooders and spammers are the most powerful.
02:13 < AgentDelta> the sheer volume of noise can overwhelm any logical argument
02:13 < AgentDelta> hehe
02:13 <@mids> AgentDelta: but what is noise? :)
02:13 < ArdVark> noise has it's value too
02:13 < AgentDelta> that's true,
02:14 < AgentDelta> you could have a channel with so much noise in it that you can insert stenographic data that is'nt obvious
02:14 < wilde> ArdVark: You say you disagree, but on what?
02:15 < ArdVark> wilde I will just stand on that statement for now, sorry
02:15 < AgentDelta> an anonymous channel with a constant stream of noise seems to serve an entirely different purpose from an anonymous channel with expectation of real-time communication to/from other minds
02:15 < Neo> The issue right now is not about noise.
02:15 < AgentDelta> maybe it needs a separate channel for anonymous communication for a general purpose, and anonymous communication for conversation
02:15 < Neo> It is about abuse of the #anonymous channel from users flooding the system.
02:15 < wilde> ArdVark: you're arguments are brilliant
02:16 < wilde> s/you're/your
02:16 <@mids> Neo: and (potential) abuse of operator power
02:16 <@mids> anyway, I am going to sleep.. thanks for dropping by. The channel logs are and will be available on  http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/
02:20 < ArdVark> is the meeting  over?  guess so
02:21 < Neo> yeah, got quiet in here.
02:21 < ArdVark> nice discussion all, see you in #anonymous
02:22 < UnDeRToW> time to sleep
02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye everybody
02:22 < Neo> l8r
02:22 < UnDeRToW> nop
02:22 < UnDeRToW> i will start with the translation of new docs soon
02:22 < UnDeRToW> see you
02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye
10:12 -!- UserX_ is now known as UserX
--- Log closed Wed Jul 03 10:29:14 2002