Re: IRC Logging

Thanks, that puts the struggles right up front.  I hadn't considered most
of them.

Aaron Goldblatt scripted ::

>> 2) Should this be done? (I think it should...)
>
>The problem that occurs with logging an active channel is simply one of 
>volume.  That is, how do you determine what is "relevant" discussion and what 
>is the idle chatter that can rapidly develop on IRC?
>
>If you want to archive everything, you should be prepared to store it, and if 
>archived search is a goal, you should be prepared to store it appropriately 
>from the beginning.
>
>Even if you drop control messages (joins, parts, ops, etc), you're still left 
>with a nice chunk of raw data.
>
>Searching and sorting of data: Do you store nick in a separate field, or 
>simply use an endless database of raw text storage and simply do a text 
>search?  Do you store datestamps?  These things provide a greater 
>amount of power and flexibility in sorting, but require thought and possibly 
>hacking first.
>
>Think about speed of archival: That is, how often will the data move from XML 
>output from the bot to searchable db, and how long will this conversion take 
>for how much data on what kind of box?  Should we first track discussion in 
>the channel over a period of a couple weeks in terms of volume and processing 
>time, and then factor upwards by, say, 250% to 300%, in looking at target 
>capabilities?
>
>Give consideration to either how long the archive will be held, or how 
>fast it will grow and what the limitations of the db engine are that we'll 
>need to design around.  MySQL may be perfectly sufficient ... or does it have 
>some upward limit we may run into?  If so, how quickly?  And if it's "a long 
>time away," it's helpful to think -now- about future upgrades and data 
>conversion (or even at abandoning a limited system before we start), as we're 
>all well aware (because lack of planning on your part does not constitute an 
>emergency on my part).
>
>If you think you can "edit" toward only "relevant" discussion, forget it.  
>Nobody is going to want to volunteer the time to read all that nonsense, I'd 
>bet, and be unwilling to put up with the flack they'll catch once something 
>"important" is zapped.  (Been there, done that.)
>
>Having said all of this, I'll agree:  If IRC is a discussion forum that leads 
>to decision-making within the community, it's important that we archive, if 
>for no other reason than "governance in the sunshine." Decision-making 
>and archival of discussion surrounding the decision are linked and should not 
>be separated, because the record of discussion, how decisions are made, and 
>why, is important to transparency (just ask the FCC).  That has been a 
>complaint about Gentoo's centralized decision-making -- that it's not 
>transparent and seems to be going on behind closed doors or behind 
>participants' backs.
>
>If we wish to avoid the same mistake, we should avoid it from the beginning 
>and request (require?) that archives be kept as a matter of community record.
>
>ag
>_______________________________________________
>Zynaut mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.zynot.org/mailman/listinfo/zynaut