IRC and the Time Limits Below is a sequence of messages copied from the Board-Moderated newsgroup. This gives *some* of the background for the discussion. Another relevant point was made by Ian! - that the existing limits on IRC were set over a year ago, roughly based on the system usage at that time. There are other relevant threads in the Board-Unmoderated and AGM newsgroups (and probably elsewhere). It is time that the Board re-examined its policy regarding IRC. Do we want to provide IRC service to NCF members? If so, what limitations on this service are necessary or desirable, over and above the existing overall limitations on access to the system? Richard Taylor, aa333 Article #517 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Thu Mar 23 18:37:00 1995 Just two notes concerning the IRC in light of the Time Limit, and the need for such a limit. With the peak period ending at 1:30am and the IRC option being available at midnight, a problem now exists for IRC users who use FreeNet during the day. If I was to start IRCing at midnight the time I would use out of my 120 minutes would be depleted by 75%, allowing me only 30 minutes to perform all other FreeNet functions and activities for the next day As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is "buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the next day. To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy talks concerning the limit? I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning the IRC. 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this service and cover the costs that way. How about NCF/IRC accounts. You want to IRC, then pay up. The office could sell "za" to "zz" accounts that allow access to IRC only. A simple line or two addition to the program at the log-in sequence would restict access to all areas but th IRC. These accounts would have a "heavily requested" donation of $25.00 per year. If 5% of NCF users want IRC access that would be 2,000 X 25 = $50,000 a year. I do not think this would violate the NCF charter under the no-user fee provision, as IRC is basically an add-on the the FreeNet structure. I have polled a number of IRCers and all but one think that this is a good idea and would be willing to pay to use IRC. The third and fourth opitions are non-viable, being that all IRC time is not counted towards the 120 minutes allotted each user, which would be unworkable. Or the removal of IRC from FreeNet, which I hope is unthinkable I thank you for you time and consideration in this matter Steve: Who loves to IIRC/IRC WhtKnight: Who is on IIRC Ozone: Who is on IRC -- -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #518 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Fri Mar 24 16:10:49 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is >"buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably >as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the >next day. This is certainly related to "why the peak hours are until 1:30am". > To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety >minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. While I understand the point this user is making here, I think he is implying that IRC time is not like other time. No-one is denying the IRC community of three-quarters of their online time, but should they choose to spend that amount of time on IRC, they can. Should they choose to spend it on mail, they can. If I want to IRC for a half-hour and do other stuff for 1.5 hours, I can. > Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy >talks concerning the limit? The fact that the IRC hours of operation and the peak hours overlap is not an issue any more than the fact that 'email hours', which happen to be all day, overlap with peak hours. I suppose in the context of this question, I could answer either "yes, it was considered as part of the services NCF offers that would be affected by the time limit", or alternatively, "no, the issue of the time limit was not designed to give any more or less consideration to any service available on NCF". If anything, we IRCers are lucky that the NON-peak hours overlap with the 42% of the day during which we are allowed to use IRC. > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning >the IRC. > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. > This may be something the Board should look at. In general, I find that the "peak hours" seem too inclusive. We should take note that, although the modems are busy during those times, a lot of the 'bloating' of the peak hours is caused by the same over-use which the time limit should eliminate, i.e. if users can't get on during the day, they are forced to redial until they can, or try later, which expands the busy hours. The initial difficulty in connecting should be lessened with the time limit's effects, and so the "peak hours" should shrink accordingly. This is something to look at after we have real data to look at (after the limit is implemented) Another IRC issue relating to this is that perhaps with the time limits in place, IRC hours could be unrestricted. The logic behind this is that if someone can only use 2 hours per day, then they will not tie up a modem all day chatting. The cause for the restricted hours has been removed, perhaps the effect should follow. (perhaps I should say, "IF the cause has been removed...") I think this would even out the load of the IRC users across the day, somewhat..., and also make the night time load less for nightly processing, such as cleaning the disks and news runs. > 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this > service and cover the costs that way. > How about NCF/IRC accounts. > You want to IRC, then pay up. I do not support paying for any service or access on NCF. One way I would support it is if some 3rd party amassed $10,000.00 and then offered it as a donation to NCF to offset the cost of expanded IRC service. That would be a donation, not a user fee. Chris -- Chris Hawley, Director | ,---, , ----------------------------| , , . The National Capital FreeNet| , , '', ,'', , ,''` Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA | , , , , , `-, ah654@freenet.carleton.ca | ,,,,', , , , `,,' Article #519 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ao594@freenet.carleton.ca (Yvonne Dionne) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: ao594@freenet.carleton.ca (Yvonne Dionne) Date: Fri Mar 24 16:11:13 1995 In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > Just two notes concerning the IRC in light of the Time Limit, and the > need for such a limit. > > With the peak period ending at 1:30am and the IRC option being available > at midnight, a problem now exists for IRC users who use FreeNet during the > day. > If I was to start IRCing at midnight the time I would use out of my 120 > minutes would be depleted by 75%, allowing me only 30 minutes to perform > all other FreeNet functions and activities for the next day > > As a frequent user of IRC I have noticed that at midnight the IRC is > "buzzing" with chatters. At about 2:00 the service load lowers considerably > as a number of IRCers have school, jobs, family or a life to attend to the > next day. > To deny these people either, three quaters of their on-line time, ninety > minutes of sleep, or the chance to IRC at all seems quite unfair. > > Would I be correct in assuming that this issue was not covered in the policy > talks concerning the limit? > > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning > the IRC. > > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. I support your proposal, Steven, if it does not significantly affect the fact that about 21 modems were freed up by the two-hour limit. Seems to me this is a reasonable request which will allow IRC's users to get their rest. Can someone provide a quick analysis of how this would affect loads? Or better, perhaps Steven could approach the hardward/software committee and work with them to do the analysis. > 2) Perhaps the NCF could target some fundraising from the lovers of this > service and cover the costs that way. > > How about NCF/IRC accounts. > You want to IRC, then pay up. > The office could sell "za" to "zz" accounts that allow access to > IRC only. > A simple line or two addition to the program at the log-in sequence > would restict access to all areas but th IRC. > > These accounts would have a "heavily requested" donation of $25.00 per > year. > If 5% of NCF users want IRC access that would be 2,000 X 25 = $50,000 > a year. > I do not think this would violate the NCF charter under the no-user fee > provision, as IRC is basically an add-on the the FreeNet structure. > I have polled a number of IRCers and all but one think that this is a > good idea and would be willing to pay to use IRC. I am not convinced that NCF should get into charging for specific uses yet. I *might* be interested in hearing more about "earmarking" portions of donations towards particular services, like United Way allows patrons to donate for (or away from) particular organizations. > The third and fourth opitions are non-viable, being that all IRC time is > not counted towards the 120 minutes allotted each user, which would be > unworkable. Or the removal of IRC from FreeNet, which I hope is > unthinkable I think IRC is a very interesting, unique application of technology within the FreeNet community. Some folks take to it like ducks to water, or me to the telephone, and they will even stay up past midnight to IRC. We cannot afford to ignore popular usage of this new technology - Western Union thought the new "telephone" thing was completely useless and that it would never be of any value. If Bell thought the telephone would be used locally as it is today, (why would one telephone the next office if you could go there and talk in person, the phone is for long distances. etc.), there is no way local calls would be free, and seen as an inalienable "right" to some today. There is some meaning and value to IRC. I'll be darned if I can put my finger on it right now, but I believe it should be protected for a while to see what comes up. Yvonne -- Yvonne Dionne Ottawa, Ontario NCF Board Member ao594@freenet.carleton.ca CANADA! GIVE SOMETHING BACK Article #520 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated,ncf.board-discussion-unmoderated From: aa724@freenet.carleton.ca (Jessica Cohen) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: aa724@freenet.carleton.ca (Jessica Cohen) Date: Sat Mar 25 14:56:49 1995 In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning > the IRC. > > 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than > at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages > to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. > This does sound reasonable to me, maybe if some modelling could be done to see what the modems savings would be if the non-peak hours started at midnight. Another option might be to "start" the day at 7:30 AM (when the peak hours begin) rather than at midnight. -- Jessica B. Cohen NCF Board of Directors insert witty quote in line above, wrap around to line below. Article #522 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Sat Mar 25 20:29:33 1995 In a previous posting, Jessica Cohen (aa724@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > In a previous posting, Steven Robert Morrison (bd577@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > >> I would like to submit for your consideration two opitions concerning >> the IRC. >> >> 1) That the peak period time limit be terminated at midnight rather than >> at 1:30, as that would not alter the estimated timesaving advantages >> to a great degree, as user load figures for that time indicate. >> > > This does sound reasonable to me, maybe if some modelling could be done > to see what the modems savings would be if the non-peak hours started > at midnight. > > Another option might be to "start" the day at 7:30 AM (when the peak > hours begin) rather than at midnight. This idea makes quite alot of sense Jessica, however the problem still unless the peak hours end at midnight. The problematic 90 minute period between midnight and 1:30, would still only allow a user to access non-IRC freenet for thirty minutes before IRCing rather than after. -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #523 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Mon Mar 27 13:25:21 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > This idea makes quite alot of sense Jessica, however the problem still > unless the peak hours end at midnight. > The problematic 90 minute period between midnight and 1:30, would still only > allow a user to access non-IRC freenet for thirty minutes before IRCing >rather than after. I still fail to see the point. We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition of 'peak hours'. Chris Hawley IRC administrator -- Chris Hawley, Director | ,---, , ----------------------------| , , . The National Capital FreeNet| , , '', ,'', , ,''` Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA | , , , , , `-, ah654@freenet.carleton.ca | ,,,,', , , , `,,' Article #524 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) Date: Wed Mar 29 10:48:22 1995 In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: > > We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. > With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason > to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. > > In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, > however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition > of 'peak hours'. I agree but without taking all things into consideration any decision is flawed. I started this point of topic to address the concerns of users, who would lose the enjoyment of IRCing with the time limit extending to 1:30am. The present IRC extention to 11:00, I think is a two edged sword, on one hand it allows easier acess to IRC, the down side is that people may "burn" off there 120 minutes before lunch. Not all users think ahead, this is a good network, and I am looking out for the interests of others as well as myself because many users are not aware of policy discussion areas, and many time saving functions on FreeNet (tollbox windows for example) S.R.M. -- S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls Article #525 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: Time limits and the IRC Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Wed Mar 29 22:26:42 1995 In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: >In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: >> In bd577@freenet.carleton.ca (Steven Robert Morrison) writes: >> >> We IRC users must live with the time limits just like everyone else. >> With that in mind, there is no 'fair' (to the rest of FreeNet) reason >> to change the definition of "peak" hours just to suit the IRC folks. >> >> In general, I feel that the 'peak' hours may be too restrictive. IRC, >> however, should not be the reason we decide to change the definition >> of 'peak hours'. > I agree but without taking all things into consideration any decision > is flawed. > I started this point of topic to address the concerns of users, who would > lose the enjoyment of IRCing with the time limit extending to 1:30am. > Yes, but by the same logic, I lose the enjoyment of USENET because the time limit extends through my lunch hour. > The present IRC extention to 11:00, I think is a two edged sword, on one >hand it allows easier acess to IRC, the down side is that people may "burn" >off there 120 minutes before lunch. There has been no change in the IRC hours. See the IRC SIG, the guy who was Responsible for that error has confessed. :) In a nutshell, the IRC hours limitation was broken. However, the safety net built right into the server caught us, so that people would see an uglier message, but not be able to IRC outside of 'approved' hours. Since the SERVER hours contain the CLIENT hours, the overlap, which is there to let people who got in the door at 9:59am finish their hour if they prefer, was what people were seeing when they connected after 10am. This has been repaired and now all is as it was before. > Not all users think ahead, this is a good network, and I am looking out for >the interests of others as well as myself because many users are not aware of >policy discussion areas, and many time saving functions on FreeNet (tollbox >windows for example) Good man. It's good to have input as to what the users' viewpoint is, when we don't get it right from our own inquiries and use. Chris > S.R.M. >-- > S.R.MORRISON: Finally and forever like the great Emmett Kelly, > I too must sweep my personnal spotlights away > The stage has darkened and the crowds have departed > Echoes of childrens laughter still haunt these halls -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca Article #526 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Wed Mar 29 22:27:31 1995 I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those times. More to follow before the meeting. Chris -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca Article #527 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ak717@freenet.carleton.ca (Miranda Gray) Subject: Re: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Reply-To: ak717@freenet.carleton.ca (Miranda Gray) Date: Thu Mar 30 20:54:43 1995 In a previous posting, Chris Hawley (ah654@freenet.carleton.ca) writes: > I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we > formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those > times. More to follow before the meeting. I think it would a wise idea to review all policies at least annually. I am not aware of any such review of current policies in the year I have been following the board's discussions. Miranda -- Miranda National Capital FreeNet -- Ottawa, Canada Article #528 (534 is last): Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) Subject: Re: IRC times Posted-By: xx118 (Andrew Patrick) Date: Thu Mar 30 20:56:36 1995 It has been brought to my attention that the IRC times *have* been set in a Board motion in the past. If this is the case, then I withdraw my proposal. I wish only to formalize what is there, and to address recent concerns that the times may be based on outdated information and should be revisited. Can someone definitively answer this for me please? (Has there been a motion carried by the Board that formalized the IRC hours of operation?) Thanks, Chris In ah654@freenet.carleton.ca (Chris Hawley) writes: >I propose as an agenda item for the next Board meeting that we >formalize the IRC times and any reasons we want to attach to those >times. More to follow before the meeting. >Chris -- Chris Hawley, Volunteer, Director, | The National Capital FreeNet Linux SIG operator, IRC administrator, * Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA NCF Oracle database administrator | ah654@freenet.carleton.ca