Operation Blackcat/Logs

From CyberArmy

22/02/2010

[21:34:11] <wa1800z> phed Rose Scub ProxyMon anvar2 wa1800z Enstyne MrKanoor MDalby Phydeau s17 SAJ Xires frispy Crono Keth_work Zer0Flag zerhash Kamos int16h samako93 inspectorgadget schlort Ploy sToRm ranok ElectRo` Bwobba iPhoney erratic GeekusAurelius freak ion s0ttle EmErgE janus decoder jester tux nihil knoledgesponge dusty SAJChurchey ToX|k shadowy dopel portn0k FrodBonzi TaGg rj-away Chillin Remyzero pr00t flk Neoburner

[21:34:26] <zerhash> lol

[21:34:31] <GeekusAurelius> We could also upgrade the name to Super CyberArmy

[21:34:32] <Scub> :\

[21:34:37] <GeekusAurelius> That makes it sound even better.

[21:34:39] * anvar2 has kicked wa1800z from #cybearmy (spamming :) )

[21:34:46] <MDalby> Can we have go faster stripes?

[21:34:46] -Global- Discussion of CyberArmy's Future now in #cyberarmy , feel free to join

[21:35:04] <wa1800z> alright

[21:35:10] <wa1800z> Enstyne, i go ahead?

[21:35:31] <Enstyne> proceed.

[21:36:03] <wa1800z> as you know, ca's server lost its harddisk 10 days ago

[21:37:00] <wa1800z> and it is only then we found out that the backup wasn't in a better shape

[21:37:08] <wa1800z> our offline backups are a bit old

[21:37:14] <wa1800z> ~9 months

[21:37:27] <wa1800z> they are in a bank safe, and it is taking time to recover them from there

[21:37:31] <GeekusAurelius> Who's responsibility was it to keep backups up to date?

[21:37:49] <wa1800z> furthermore, it seems they don't cover everything

[21:37:58] <wa1800z> GeekusAurelius, everyone

[21:38:07] <GeekusAurelius> Everyone?

[21:38:08] <MDalby> CyberArmy Exec

[21:38:13] <wa1800z> you can blame me, if you wish

[21:38:20] <wa1800z> won't help

[21:38:22] <GeekusAurelius> Does the term "diffusion of responsibility" mean anything to anyone?

[21:38:30] <wa1800z> anyhow

[21:38:37] <wa1800z> so we now have 2 choices

[21:38:42] <anvar2> GeekusAurelius: stfu or I'll show you some responsibility :)

[21:38:45] <phed> pointing fingers isnt going to bring the hdd back to life

[21:39:03] <zerhash> whats responsibility?

[21:39:08] <zerhash> lol

[21:39:16] <wa1800z> 1. recover the data, and try to make it run from there

[21:39:17] <wa1800z> but

[21:39:27] <zerhash> anvar2: does that responsibility entail child support?

[21:39:35] <wa1800z> but it is 2. that i would really like to discuss tonight

[21:39:45] <GeekusAurelius> phed, you're right. But Super CyberArmy could take the initiative to put in place some Standard Operating Procedures on who has responsibility and when, etc.

[21:40:14] <wa1800z> GeekusAurelius, told you, my mistake

[21:40:29] <int16h> GeekusAurelius, this is to discuss how we proceed - not whine on like an annoying cunt.

[21:40:33] --- *** Notice -- Received KILL message for n-570065!jfkwjsv@ca-1CCBB786.lei3.cable.ntl.com from JeetServ2 Path: vortex!jeetserv.cyberarmy.net!JeetServ2 ((BANNED) )

[21:40:42] <GeekusAurelius> wa1800z, I mean for the future.

[21:40:48] <GeekusAurelius> int16h, I mean for the future.

[21:40:59] <wa1800z> yah, we will discuss the future right now

[21:41:07] <GeekusAurelius> Ah.

[21:41:13] <anvar2> yes, good plan, throw it in a suggestion box in week, now lets first hear the possible options

[21:41:18] --- *** Notice -- Received KILL message for n-808418!sqzvfna@ca-C06D43.access.uunet.co.za from JeetServ2 Path: vortex!jeetserv.cyberarmy.net!JeetServ2 ((BANNED) )

[21:41:35] <wa1800z> even if we can recover stuff, we have the opportunity to redo everything, right now

[21:41:44] <wa1800z> with a new understanding of things

[21:41:55] <wa1800z> plus

[21:42:15] <Rose> hmm?

[21:42:17] <wa1800z> it is really cool and fairly exciting to have an opportunity to rebuild everything

[21:42:20] <Rose> I was in the bath

[21:42:24] * Rose slaps wa1800z

[21:42:28] <MDalby> Rose: pics pls

[21:42:33] <Rose> lol

[21:42:42] <wa1800z> each of would have his own plans

[21:42:53] <wa1800z> cool plans, i'm sure

[21:42:59] <Rose> I already said my ideas on the forum

[21:42:59] <phed> pics or it didnt happen and you stink

[21:43:19] <wa1800z> we all have our pet plans for ca, but couldn't really acheive them, for a reason, or another

[21:43:24] <MDalby> I think not moving forward with a new system / structure would be a mistake at this point.

[21:43:47] <Rose> yeh, we already had a discussion about how stuck we were and wanted something new

[21:43:48] * phed can remeber cyberarmy looking the same for so long

[21:43:48] <zerhash> agreed

[21:43:50] <Rose> this is the time

[21:44:01] <wa1800z> after long hours of discussions, and input for many, i'd like to lay out a few suggestions, on how that future plan can be

[21:44:10] <wa1800z> i'll keep it to 5 points

[21:44:18] * Rose points

[21:44:37] <wa1800z> 1. we need a breath of air regarding the constraints/implication of ranks: reset ranks, and/or pause ranking, for now

[21:44:48] <-- inspectorgadget has quit (Quit: AnacønÐa · "It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick")

[21:44:52] <Rose> reset

[21:44:53] <wa1800z> 2. we want to go federated and distributed, more space for everyone to operate, without impeding on other, or jeopardizing critical resources: support whoever wants to run how own ca server

[21:44:58] <Rose> but appreciate longterm members

[21:45:40] <wa1800z> 3. a byproduct of 1 & 2, everyone is responsible for cyberarmy: reset closed offcial groups, such as staff. for instance.

[21:46:05] <wa1800z> 4. community visions and technical development shall follow that same pattern. technical cooperation shall grow organically, if anything.: go ad-hoc, both code/features, and community wise.

[21:46:21] <wa1800z> 5. maintain common communication and network resources, in a hope to keep ties as close as possible: maintain federated cooperation

[21:46:29] --> sheeple (sheeple@9D2762.249315.E97879.DD0E50) has joined #cyberarmy

[21:47:17] <wa1800z> more people having more important roles, means they'll learn more

[21:47:34] <wa1800z> going horizontal will only help acheive our ideals

[21:48:09] <Rose> democratic community without closed groups like you just mentioned, members vote for who goes in what position, or a points system determines it

[21:48:33] <Keth_work> democratic where rank/points determine eligibility to run for said position

[21:48:43] <GeekusAurelius> i'm going to create a thousand account and vote myself CinC.

[21:48:46] <wa1800z> each server will decide how to regulated itself

[21:49:01] <MDalby> That sounds good

[21:49:06] <wa1800z> and could be operated independently

[21:49:07] --- *** Notice -- Received KILL message for n-196788!rsedjreq@AAmiens-158-1-103-165.w92-131.abo.wanadoo.fr from JeetServ2 Path: vortex!jeetserv.cyberarmy.net!JeetServ2 ((BANNED) )

[21:49:18] <wa1800z> hopefully, we will keep on helping and supporting each others

[21:49:30] <-- phed has quit (Operation timed out)

[21:49:37] <wa1800z> all cooperation shall be organic

[21:49:37] <MDalby> Each server operates its own resources and pools communications and follows the same basic structure.

[21:49:51] <int16h> Like a franchise.

[21:49:56] <MDalby> oo, thats a good term

[21:49:57] <int16h> A tight one ;>

[21:50:03] <Keth_work> wa1800z: we need to ensure that if some member-run service because heavily relied on that it is a) absorbed by the main site or b) we have a back-up in place if/when that member decides to pull their service

[21:50:14] <Keth_work> s/because/becomes

[21:50:16] <wa1800z> MDalby, only communications are critical, i think. the rest will be up to each server

[21:50:18] <anvar2> will there be any interaction in terms of shared resources? (windstone satelites?, irc?, etc?)

[21:50:21] <Rose> int16h likes it tight

[21:50:28] <-- sheeple has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[21:50:29] <wa1800z> we can call them forts, or barracks, or whatever

[21:50:44] <MDalby> wa1800z: works for me

[21:50:59] <wa1800z> so it it more like cyberguerilla

[21:51:01] <wa1800z> but..

[21:51:01] <wa1800z> well

[21:51:06] <MDalby> communications should be maintained by a stable administration of people

[21:51:17] <MDalby> the bill payers

[21:51:20] <MDalby> basically

[21:51:24] <wa1800z> possibly

[21:51:34] <MDalby> i dont see another way of doing it?

[21:51:50] <MDalby> to use the irc model, we need a "hub"

[21:52:22] <wa1800z> do we agree on the basics, before we get to the technical parts?

[21:52:41] <MDalby> Personally, I'm happy with this

[21:52:58] <zerhash> looks good so fa

[21:52:59] <zerhash> r

[21:53:00] <wa1800z> MDalby, care to share why? :)

[21:53:01] <SAJ> yes basically, my only concern is that there is nothing that says that the "core services" are. What will CA provide itself to build a community.

[21:53:11] <wa1800z> just to see if we are on the same page

[21:53:28] <zerhash> thats at the technical level SAJ

[21:53:34] <MDalby> Because that way, the people who run each service get to choose how it is run.

[21:53:42] <MDalby> I like that

[21:53:58] <MDalby> not a group of people running everything, that can sit idle and leave things to rot.

[21:53:59] <GeekusAurelius> In all seriousness, what about a name change?

[21:54:09] <wa1800z> we can even run duplicate services, pointless, but well, it is a free internet :)

[21:54:19] <wa1800z> (i hope)

[21:54:26] <wa1800z> naming is another matter

[21:54:33] <MDalby> naming is a technicality.

[21:54:35] <Keth_work> as a fail-safe wa1800z

[21:54:39] <MDalby> and i like CyberArmy.

[21:54:39] <frispy> duplicate but redundant and fault tollerant to a degree ;c)

[21:54:48] <Keth_work> i like CyberArmy as well

[21:54:53] <MDalby> yeah, we could run redundant kit

[21:55:02] <MDalby> that will solve backups in a lot of cases too

[21:55:29] <Keth_work> if space/bandwidth allows it would awesome if members would allow offsite backups to their servers as well

[21:55:30] <wa1800z> that ensures that if a component laggs, it should be relatively easier to compensate

[21:55:36] <wa1800z> elsewhere

[21:55:59] --- *** Notice -- Received KILL message for n-905509!rakeeqr@68-113-50-2.static.snlo.ca.charter.com from JeetServ2 Path: vortex!jeetserv.cyberarmy.net!JeetServ2 ((BANNED) )

[21:56:07] <wa1800z> Keth_work, i'm sure lots of cooperation will follow a such model

[21:56:14] <Keth_work> true

[21:56:15] <wa1800z> only, organically

[21:56:31] <MDalby> I like the idea that seperate aspects of the community can be run differently and still work towards a common goal.

[21:56:51] <Keth_work> there will need to be a common ethics policy of sorts

[21:56:59] <Keth_work> just to maintain the ideals of the community

[21:57:07] <MDalby> That should be loose though.

[21:57:09] <GeekusAurelius> Ok, well... without a name change, at least at some point in the future, the image of CA will remain as this: http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e164/kphares/dont_worry_sir_Im_from_the_internet.jpg?t=1266868563

[21:57:16] <Keth_work> i agree MDalby

[21:57:17] <wa1800z> recommendations ?

[21:57:39] <Rose> lmfao

[21:57:49] <MDalby> lol

[21:57:52] <Keth_work> that kid will hack your mainframe so fast...

[21:57:56] <zerhash> lol

[21:58:06] <zerhash> its agustus from willy wanka

[21:58:13] <Keth_work> but i bet he's still waiting on his WoW bedpan

[21:58:14] <GeekusAurelius> amirite?

[21:58:20] <MDalby> and get a 10:1 kill ratio on quake

[21:58:37] <MDalby> Ok, so back on track..

[21:59:02] <MDalby> It seems we are agreed on the basics, although they should be written up so people who are not here can read up on them

[21:59:14] <wa1800z> i can do that

[21:59:44] <MDalby> cool

[22:01:14] --> phed (phed@pwns.bitch.es) has joined #cyberarmy

[22:02:00] <SAJ> alright, so what's the next order of business?

[22:02:49] <Keth_work> taking over the world

[22:03:02] <wa1800z> i think everyone should think about the matter a bit

[22:03:20] <wa1800z> see how we can improve the above mentioned guidelines

[22:03:21] <int16h> GeekusAurelius, Does Khris know you're spreading images of him?

[22:03:30] <wa1800z> better wording, or better scoping, for instance

[22:04:00] <wa1800z> after that, well, your imagination ( and free time ) are the only limit

[22:04:19] <zerhash> lol @ khris

[22:04:23] <MDalby> ok, shall we break for now and carry on at a later date?

[22:04:32] <MDalby> maybe throw some docs around

[22:04:47] <wa1800z> we can agree on a later date, and still discuss it now.. :)

[22:04:53] <MDalby> ok

[22:05:02] <SAJ> yes, wa1800z where are you going to be posting the write up?

[22:05:24] <wa1800z> SAJ, the wiki i suppose, easier to edit, etc ?

[22:05:44] <MDalby> works

[22:05:56] <SAJ> sounds good, we should put a link on the landing page

[22:06:25] <SAJ> Discussion can take place on /mess or in the temp forum

[22:07:04] <SAJ> here of course

[22:07:19] <MDalby> I think a lot of this comes back to the mission statement tbh

[22:07:36] <wa1800z> yah

[22:07:37] <zerhash> do we have a mission statement from before?

[22:07:47] <Keth_work> yeah i don't think i ever saw it

[22:07:58] <MDalby> the mission statement should bring all aspects of cyberarmy together

[22:08:04] <MDalby> i should be quite generic in nature

[22:08:08] --> sheeple (sheeple@9D2762.249315.E97879.DD0E50) has joined #cyberarmy

[22:08:24] <wa1800z> was trying to reach pengo regrading the mission statement

[22:08:37] <MDalby> Security, Learning, open source, resource pooling

[22:08:44] <wa1800z> no reply yet thou.. i don't think he wants to talk to me

[22:09:02] <shadowy> privacy

[22:09:03] <zerhash> this would be a CinC thing

[22:09:05] <MDalby> I could try, but it may take a day or too

[22:09:20] <Keth_work> how long does it need to be?

[22:09:34] <MDalby> yeah privacy is another important one

[22:09:55] <MDalby> maybe we brainstorm keywords that reflect what we thing of cyberarmy

[22:09:58] <wa1800z> crypto-paranoia, you mean? :)

[22:10:10] <MDalby> then try to look for patterns and mold them into a statement

[22:10:20] <Keth_work> he' onto us! quickly close the ports!

[22:10:24] <Keth_work> *he's

[22:10:33] <wa1800z> brb, drinks

[22:10:57] <MDalby> think*

[22:10:58] <MDalby> kk

[22:11:06] <MDalby> yeah im gonna break too and digest this for a few mins

[22:11:25] <phed> joint time :D

[22:11:25] * Keth_work breaks to get back to work

[22:11:30] <MDalby> This system would allow for communities like privacy com to come back on board

[22:11:47] <MDalby> and other satellite communities

[22:12:49] <Enstyne> all ports must be closed. to access the web you've got to get our ssl cert which is cross-verified by multiple authorities, and also perform a sequence of port knocks which changes every 5 seconds from an OTP RSA generator that you need to call decoder in order to get.

[22:12:55] <Keth_work> [10:52] <mess> stevetom98 says: Get more information about: http://www.asdpoolsupply.com/ #aquabot #pool #water #supply #fun -> http://cyberarmy.net/mess/notice/116

[22:12:58] <Keth_work> grr

[22:13:00] <Keth_work> fail copy paste

[22:13:03] <Keth_work> stupid pdf's

[22:13:06] <MDalby> lol

[22:13:09] <decoder> Enstyne: works for me

[22:13:17] <MDalby> lmao

[22:13:20] * zerhash calls decoder every 5 minutes

[22:13:21] <phed> hax

[22:13:36] <MDalby> Sets off Decoders house alarm every 5 mins

[22:13:38] <MDalby> :D

[22:13:54] <zerhash> sleeps with vapors mom every 5 mins

[22:14:22] <zerhash> this is no fun without vapor here lol

[22:14:37] <-- GeekusAurelius (GeekusAure@ca-18FB2BE7.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com) has left #cyberarmy (Leaving)

[22:14:47] <Keth_work> aha they protected their pdf...fail

[22:16:52] <Enstyne> also to get access to the CA web you will need to first do all of the above just to get access to the tier 1 login, where you will enter your username and password into an apache authentication box and be given temporary VPN details. The VPN runs a custom TCP-like stack that is secret and you can only use the network via a dongle which CA will provide.

[22:17:03] <zerhash> rofl!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddhVSQlExYE

[22:17:04] <Keth_work> "A good mission statement should accurately explain why your organization exists and what it hopes to achieve in the future. It articulates the organization's essential nature, its values, and its work."

[22:17:20] <phed> dongs

[22:17:37] <Enstyne> CA can provide many dongs too.

[22:17:42] <phed> lol

[22:17:46] <wa1800z> shall we agree on a new discussion foy say, next week, same time?

[22:17:54] <wa1800z> for

[22:18:31] <Enstyne> enough time for people to stir up shit

[22:18:33] <Enstyne> seems fine to me.

[22:18:39] <wa1800z> lol

[22:18:53] <-- sheeple has quit (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)

[22:19:03] <wa1800z> monday are good. everyone is in a bad mood.

[22:19:14] --- *** Notice -- TS Control - U:line set time to be 1266869944 (timediff: 0)

[22:19:16] * MDalby raises an eyebrow

[22:21:02] <MDalby> Are we done here for this evening then?

[22:21:50] <zerhash> hrm...

[22:22:37] <zerhash> so until monday

[22:22:42] <zerhash> we just hang tight

[22:23:01] <-- MrKanoor has quit (Quit: Leaving)

[22:23:04] <wa1800z> lets take time to brainstorm it a bit more

[22:23:23] <wa1800z> i'm sure more people would have something to say about the matter

[22:23:34] <MDalby> kk

[22:23:42] <wa1800z> i hope so, that is

01/03/2010

[19:19:56] <wa1800z> i have a 3 point agenda, which is an aggregation of discussions i've had with you guys

[19:19:59] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v phed by iota

[19:20:17] <wa1800z> 1. what are the traps or weaknesses of a "the cyberarmy is the network" model?

[19:20:17] <wa1800z> 2. What is the role of the cinc in a such model?

[19:20:17] <wa1800z> 3. How should the new direction be reflected in the mission statement?

[19:20:42] <wa1800z> so

[19:20:44] <-- zerhash (zerhash@ca-118BD821.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[19:20:49] <wa1800z> for 1

[19:21:29] <wa1800z> Are we really going to have multiple nodes? or that's theoretical fantasy we have been convincing ourselves with?

[19:21:43] <wa1800z> we can distribute nodes over domains

[19:21:54] <frispy> personally I believe it can work

[19:21:57] <wa1800z> we can distribute over roles as well

[19:22:01] <iota> i agree

[19:22:03] <iota> it should scale from one node up

[19:22:20] <wa1800z> say, horizontal nodes (domains), or vertical nodes (irc)

[19:22:25] <wa1800z> mic and matching both

[19:22:31] <wa1800z> *mix

[19:22:32] <iota> both

[19:22:33] <frispy> their are obvious technical challenges with this model

[19:22:40] <iota> yes

[19:22:50] <wa1800z> we will have to be very creative, that is for sure

[19:22:57] <frispy> single sign in i would say is a must under it

[19:23:01] <iota> yes

[19:23:04] <iota> though that could be federated

[19:23:16] <frispy> indeed

[19:23:41] <wa1800z> a centralized authority for users/trust sure is handy

[19:23:47] <frispy> i dont really want to introduce the technical issues here and just keep them very high level

[19:23:49] <wa1800z> but, a headache, in a distributed model as well

[19:24:01] <wa1800z> yeah, no technical discussions tonight, please :)

[19:24:03] <wa1800z> that's for next time

[19:24:06] <iota> if the network has a single point of failure

[19:24:11] <iota> then we might as well not bother making it

[19:24:17] <frispy> very true

[19:24:19] <iota> as it won't solve any problems with the current model

[19:24:26] <iota> well, past model heh

[19:24:36] <frispy> whatever direction we need resilience

[19:24:53] <iota> indeed

[19:24:56] <ion> don't knee-jerk to drastically in the 'opposite direction' to overcompensate for the recent critical failure.

[19:25:02] <iota> look guys i've been working on a massive schematic full of ideas type thing today

[19:25:06] <iota> it's nowhere near finished

[19:25:14] <wa1800z> +phed +Dutchie99 +x0r +mel0n +albondi +int16h ReDeeMeR ghostkeeper @wa1800z +snarkles +gmw +inspectorgadget anvar2 +Remyzero +_Penguin +ToX|k +Chillin +bitwise +FrodBonzi +xapim +ElectRo` +sToRm +Kethoth +makat` +ranok @decoder +pr00t +schlort +Phydeau +mess @frispy +iota +portn0k +Ploy @knoledgesponge ion Asmodai +Neoburner nihil +ytbot +dusty +daniel +ch8ind +DiabloHorn +shadowy +flk +EmErgE rj-away

[19:25:18] <anvar2> wtf

[19:25:19] <wa1800z> we have started, wake up

[19:25:22] <Ploy> I'm here :P

[19:25:24] <frispy> lol

[19:25:24] <Phydeau> ?

[19:25:24] <anvar2> that is 5 times today

[19:25:26] --> zerhash (zerhash@ca-118BD821.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) has joined #cyberarmy

[19:25:27] <anvar2> stop spamming you ppl

[19:25:35] <wa1800z> anvar2, we love you

[19:25:35] <iota> anvar2: if you don't want to participate, f/o

[19:25:36] <ion> distributing everything is ridiculous an infeasible.

[19:25:36] <anvar2> or do it once when appropriate

[19:25:39] <snarkles> hellooooo

[19:25:45] <Ploy> anvar2: If you don't like it, you're free to leave.

[19:25:46] <Ploy> :P

[19:25:47] <iota> ion: i agree

[19:25:47] --> jfd (eygeny@335CA4E6.41C512BD.ECE986BE.IP) has joined #cyberarmy

[19:25:51] <iota> however

[19:25:54] <wa1800z> ion, but not doing it would somewhat defeat the purpose, wouldn't it?

[19:25:55] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v jfd by iota

[19:25:57] <anvar2> ploy: I'm also free to kick oyu :)

[19:25:58] <ion> there still remains the need for some level of centralized control/authority.

[19:26:08] <iota> ok

[19:26:11] <ion> I agree with decentralization, on some things.

[19:26:12] <Ploy> anvar2: That would just be juvenile and petty.

[19:26:14] <-- jfd (eygeny@335CA4E6.41C512BD.ECE986BE.IP) has left #cyberarmy

[19:26:17] <iota> may i have the floor for a few lines?

[19:26:25] <frispy> sure iota

[19:26:26] <wa1800z> of course

[19:26:32] <iota> thx

[19:26:33] <frispy> im keen to hear your thoughts

[19:26:35] <wa1800z> stay on topic please thou

[19:26:40] <wa1800z> no technical discussions

[19:26:45] <wa1800z> that's for next time

[19:26:48] <iota> an idea which struck me as having practical utility as well as internet-awesome-factor

[19:27:04] <iota> is to enshrine the goals of the community in its cryptographic identity

[19:27:08] -*- snarkles is on phone calls, but ping me with anything specific you need and I'll respond when I can

[19:27:16] <Chillin> needs more porn.

[19:27:19] <iota> if we were to write a mission statement from scratch

[19:27:31] *** Mode #cyberarmy -v Chillin by iota

[19:27:43] <iota> which embodied our long term goals as we agree now

[19:27:55] <-- Chillin (Chillin@ca-36CA5A2.hsd1.tx.comcast.net) has left #cyberarmy

[19:27:57] <iota> which is broad enough to change, yet ethically rigorous

[19:28:18] <wa1800z> i also think that crypto would be a strong foundation for ca

[19:28:29] <iota> and use such documents as the "calling card" needed to access the network as an unknown user

[19:28:31] <wa1800z> as well, that is

[19:28:36] -*- inspectorgadget also likes where this is going

[19:28:44] <iota> in a system based on automated contract signing and verifying

[19:28:46] <iota> or manual

[19:28:55] <iota> when i connect to this network, however i do it

[19:29:19] <ion> after iota is finished, I'd like the floor for however long it takes me to finish one beer.

[19:29:20] <iota> i do so using a document which says "we are cyberarmy, this is what we stand for, here is a hash of this message, use this as the key for the handshake

[19:29:23] <ion> (while typing)

[19:29:38] <iota> the user can sign a server key or whatever

[19:29:55] <iota> to endorse the server as upholding its principals

[19:30:12] <iota> and the network will have no choice but to uphold those principals (at least in the eyes of its users)

[19:30:26] <iota> changing them will be technically easy, but it'll be a pain in the arse

[19:30:31] <iota> like changing your email address

[19:30:43] <iota> this means it can be done if needed, but won't be done without good reason

[19:30:53] <iota> and it will be transparent to users

[19:30:59] <ion> I see what you're saying, but I think about it from the opposite direction.

[19:31:06] <ion> may I elaborate?

[19:31:10] <iota> sure go ahead

[19:31:33] <ion> first, it would rely on CyberArmy existing as its own Root Certificate Authority.

[19:32:09] <wa1800z> guys

[19:32:15] <ion> existing services and network nodes will each be established as Sub-Root Authorities and the CA Proper.

[19:32:22] <wa1800z> we are going offtopic

[19:32:28] <iota> we are, you're right

[19:32:35] <wa1800z> the topic was "the traps and weaknesses"

[19:32:38] <ion> no we're not...this is just prelude to my model.

[19:32:40] <wa1800z> we all know how cool it is

[19:32:46] <wa1800z> and agree on top of that

[19:32:46] <iota> shall we discuss what we want to achieve, before how we want to achieve it?

[19:32:57] <ion> meh...go on then.

[19:33:06] <iota> ok

[19:33:20] <wa1800z> but i want to make sure we aren't just taken by the coolness factor of it

[19:33:25] <Ploy> ion: Might be worth putting your idea/schema on the /wiki

[19:33:52] <wa1800z> ion, next time we will be discussing exactly that

[19:34:07] <wa1800z> same applies to iota

[19:34:11] <iota> :)

[19:34:18] <wa1800z> (and myself)

[19:34:20] <iota> that's good, i'll have had time to document my ideas a bit by then

[19:34:21] <inspectorgadget> yes please do that ion

[19:34:23] <ion> tbh, we need a website and a userdatabase to exist.

[19:34:31] <ion> that's the bottom line.

[19:34:37] <wa1800z> ion, because if we dont, what happens?

[19:34:45] <wa1800z> (see, this is exactly the topic for tonight)

[19:34:45] <iota> ion: agreed, but that user database can be as light as "list of public keys who are members"

[19:34:46] <ion> what makes us cyberarmy?

[19:35:01] <wa1800z> identity

[19:35:03] <ion> without a centralized database what make us cyberarmy?

[19:35:03] <iota> ion: at the moment, there isn't a single answer to that?

[19:35:15] <wa1800z> ion, a proper mission statement?

[19:35:20] <ion> no, I believe that is the answer...honestly.

[19:35:34] <ion> we've had a mission statement that's changed relatively little since the begining.

[19:35:42] <wa1800z> little?

[19:35:49] <iota> ion: i can sign up 1000 accounts on the website, doesn't mean there's any more or less "cyberarmy"

[19:35:53] <wa1800z> last time i checked it, i couldn't even recognize the original missions statement

[19:36:04] <wa1800z> i'm not saying it a good or bad thing, mind you.

[19:36:27] <ion> it evolved with the community.

[19:36:42] <ion> but the essense remain the same, in my opinion.

[19:36:51] <wa1800z> a cryptographic WoT common denominator could be a good neutal basis for the system

[19:37:02] <wa1800z> if we can find a way to make it user friendly

[19:37:21] <wa1800z> still

[19:37:26] <frispy> im sure thats possible

[19:37:36] <wa1800z> the idea is too good to not have drawbacks

[19:37:43] <wa1800z> what are the drawbacks?

[19:37:52] <ion> I don't think most of us understand exactly what you mean by that.

[19:37:58] <ion> please explain.

[19:38:06] <frispy> it isnt appealing to the younder members coming though

[19:38:11] <wa1800z> scenario

[19:38:16] <frispy> younger*

[19:38:30] <wa1800z> we have cyberarmy.bleh, cyberarmy.blah and cyberarmy.zonk

[19:38:54] <wa1800z> each has its own recruiting strategy and tools

[19:38:59] <wa1800z> its own services

[19:39:12] <wa1800z> all irc servers are linked by janus

[19:39:31] <wa1800z> where is cyberarmy in that?

[19:40:05] <frispy> personally I see CyberArmy being stronger as a brand in that model

[19:40:14] <ion> I'm not sure that explains your model?

[19:40:40] <frispy> it offers a wider range of input

[19:40:46] <wa1800z> ion, i'm looking for the flaw

[19:40:59] <ion> you haven't explained the model.

[19:41:00] <wa1800z> is it really what we want? and how can we make it better

[19:41:05] <ion> I still understand what you're talking about.

[19:41:09] <ion> *don'

[19:41:16] <ion> *don't understand~!

[19:41:22] <_Penguin> same

[19:41:32] <frispy> ok let me try to explain

[19:41:43] <wa1800z> is the scenario above what we discussed over the last week?

[19:42:12] <wa1800z> or not?

[19:42:19] <ion> I was present for one discussion regarding VPNs and SSL CAs

[19:42:27] <wa1800z> we discussed a decentralized cyberarmy

[19:42:44] -*- _Penguin has been afk for around 2 weeks :)

[19:43:05] <wa1800z> what is your idea of a decentralized cyberarmy?

[19:43:13] -*- _Penguin got back yesterday

[19:43:19] <wa1800z> _Penguin, we noticed :)

[19:43:22] <_Penguin> :p

[19:44:01] <wa1800z> everyone, what is your understanding of a distributed cyberarmy

[19:44:10] <wa1800z> are your planning to launch your cyberarmy node?

[19:44:31] <wa1800z> why? how? what are the problems you see with a such idea?

[19:44:53] <-- mel0n (mel0n@ca-3FD10953.know.cable.virginmedia.com) has quit (Ping timeout)

[19:45:34] <wa1800z> so noone is planing to have run his own node?

[19:45:47] <Ploy> I would definitely consider it

[19:45:48] <wa1800z> *-have

[19:45:51] <snarkles> back

[19:45:58] <wa1800z> Ploy, why?

[19:46:03] <snarkles> Can someone fill in n00bs like me on what the heck distributed cyberarmy means?

[19:46:08] <ion> I plan on maintaining a routed VPN network and a Certificate Authority.

[19:46:17] <_Penguin> snarkles: exactly wtf i was thinking

[19:46:19] <ion> snarkles: that's what I was trying to get to the bottom of.

[19:46:36] <snarkles> That sounds like basically any yahoo sets up a site and calls it "cyberarmy.dot.whatever" and has a community they call CA, but noen of these people talk to each other and they're all in their own silos.

[19:46:40] <snarkles> Which sounds... horrifying.

[19:46:40] <wa1800z> _Penguin, snarkles http://cyberarmy.net/wiki/Operation_Blackcat

[19:46:43] <snarkles> So I hope I'm missing something. ;)

[19:46:46] <Ploy> wa1800z: Because it's something fun to do, I may well learn a fair amount from it

[19:47:02] <Ploy> So putting the effort in will pay back in terms of knowledge and experience

[19:47:12] <ion> snarkles: I agree. That's why I think too much decentralization would be detrimental.

[19:47:13] <wa1800z> Ploy, ion is planning to offer vpn services, what are you planing to offer?

[19:47:46] <wa1800z> or that doens't matter?

[19:47:52] <wa1800z> just wanna have fun and learn?

[19:48:12] <Ploy> Nono, I want to CA to benefit as well

[19:48:14] <_Penguin> wait so old ca had no backups off server?

[19:48:15] <shadowy> i might run one for those reasons :)

[19:48:18] <snarkles> distributed servers to handle database traffic or whatever of the same central site, though, makes sense.. though I'm kind of surprised that we need such a thing. I would think that at this stage we could set up shop on any mom and pop shared hosting platform given our number dwindlage over the past while.

[19:48:20] -*- _Penguin facepalms

[19:48:25] <ion> VPNs and SSL are fun and learning for me ;)

[19:48:48] <Ploy> As for what I'd offer... I could provide a VPS or two to help out generally where needed... Whether that's for load balancing a website, database or whatnot

[19:49:06] <wa1800z> load balancing isn't the goal

[19:49:20] <_Penguin> what happens if one of these nodes goes down the & user hosting the node has no backups

[19:49:27] <wa1800z> promoting ca's ideal is

[19:49:29] <Ploy> wa1800z: Hence the 'whatnot' :P

[19:49:34] <_Penguin> even more epic fail

[19:49:39] <ion> yeah, I agree with snarkles, which is why I said earlier to be careful about 'knee-jerking'. We have a tendancy to come up with very grand a brilliant goals, but then we realize that there really aren't that many of us.

[19:50:10] <wa1800z> ion, which is the goal of this discussion? :) "how much of a viable idea is it"

[19:50:15] <snarkles> Honestly, I see an opportunity here to *unify* the various CA spin-off sites, and become one cohesive community again, like when we were in our heyday.

[19:50:21] <ion> we don't need to become sort of 'spirit in the crypto' until we've rebuilt our userbase and stature back to a level where something like that would even be realistic.

[19:50:33] <snarkles> If we want to spread CA's message, we do things like make a Facebook widget for CA missions, etc.

[19:50:42] <snarkles> BUt it all hooks back into the single "mothershiop"

[19:50:43] -*- Ploy nods

[19:50:54] <_Penguin> yeah

[19:50:57] --> camel (camel@sharkhunt.er) has joined #cyberarmy

[19:50:58] <wa1800z> snarkles, do you really want to mix your ca profile with your fb's ?

[19:50:59] <snarkles> also, typing is not my strong suit today

[19:51:14] <decoder> helo snarkles =)

[19:51:24] <wa1800z> i prefer a private approach to the thing

[19:51:28] <snarkles> wa1800z, No, definitely not. But this is the way to do "virual". Not 50,000 copies of a member database which all differ.

[19:51:35] --> [gmw] (Sebulon@ca-382EBDEB.vie.surfer.at) has joined #cyberarmy

[19:51:38] <wa1800z> building the community the old school way

[19:51:59] <Ploy> Would we be starting completely afresh? Everybody registering again, etc?

[19:52:12] <-> ghostkeeper is now known as masterkeylink

[19:52:20] <wa1800z> ok

[19:52:21] <snarkles> I think afresh is a good idea, personally. The lack of backup situation presents a great opportunity to do an *actual* rank reset.

[19:52:28] <Ploy> If so we might want to advertise ourselves in certain arenas

[19:52:31] <snarkles> A commnunity reset, an ideals reset... all of it.

[19:52:33] <frispy> ploy yep i think so

[19:52:37] <Ploy> snarkles: Agreed

[19:52:52] <ion> to be honest...the only weaknesses I felt with the CA we just lost was too few execs with priveleges to make changes and control over key things like DNS and backups.

[19:53:12] <ion> otherwise, I felt like we were just starting to get back on track.

[19:53:18] <wa1800z> i prefer that cyberarmy takes "freeing minds" approach, as opposed to the "viral" approach

[19:53:28] <wa1800z> makes more sense to the context

[19:53:39] <wa1800z> and has a cool literary reference

[19:53:42] <wa1800z> ;)

[19:54:11] <snarkles> But where I see disconnect is that now more than ever is the time to **centralize** our dispirate community, get everyone together. This decentralization idea, though definitely technically very interesting/challenging, is just a total recipe for community fragmentation. This would be the absolute worst medicine for our comunity at this time.

[19:54:11] <snarkles> </opinionated> ;)

[19:54:20] <Ploy> ion: Would we not still need a fairly central place for the userdb, etc? Even if it's replicated to other 'trusted' sources?

[19:54:29] <-- gmw (Sebulon@ca-382EBDEB.vie.surfer.at) has quit (Ping timeout)

[19:54:37] <ion> yes. And that's what I've been saying since this meeting started :P

[19:54:42] <wa1800z> ion, access was limited for "security" reasons. how if you go horizontal.. you can have much more people in "charge" of things

[19:55:04] <wa1800z> defining "trusted" source defeats the purpose, i'm afraid

[19:55:17] <ion> limited to the point where people with the authority to make changes were present once/month, to be fair ;)

[19:55:24] <wa1800z> the outcome of this discussion can be "not a good idea" mind you

[19:55:52] <snarkles> Well, I'm still trying to understand the idea in the first place, personally. :) I read operation blackcat but it's missing enough details for me to suss out what's going on.

[19:56:03] <snarkles> But granted, I've been quite out of the loop.

[19:56:03] <shadowy> i think the "run your own node" idea is brilliant, offers something to do for the members and a reason to stick around too.

[19:56:04] <Ploy> wa1800z: So you're thinking of being entirely distributed with no central points?

[19:56:14] <wa1800z> Ploy, only brainstorming

[19:56:17] <Ploy> Oki

[19:56:31] <-- Dutchie99 (lanoos87@ca-11BE767B.chello.nl) has quit (Quit:)

[19:56:33] <Ploy> For me that sounds potentially dangerous

[19:56:39] <frispy> snarkles I will be publishing my idea with a bit more substance sometime in the next week or so

[19:56:57] <snarkles> frispy, great, that'd help a lot I think.

[19:57:06] <wa1800z> snarkles, the core idea is that 1. we can't please everyone, nor can support everyone

[19:57:08] <frispy> i like you wish to bring other parts back into the community

[19:57:34] <wa1800z> so let's leave the opportunities open for everyone

[19:57:43] <frispy> while allowing them to have say in what they do and where they go

[19:58:13] <frispy> removing the polital crap which forced them out in the first place

[19:58:33] <wa1800z> and more importantly, "show us the cool things you can do"

[19:59:10] <wa1800z> it can be a short term strategy

[19:59:11] <-- masterkeylink (matthewsta@ca-F74C3C2.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com) has quit (Ping timeout)

[19:59:32] <wa1800z> or long term

[19:59:37] <wa1800z> all options are open

[20:00:11] <wa1800z> to make things a bit easier

[20:00:16] <wa1800z> lets take the opposite approach

[20:00:40] <_Penguin> tbh how many different things are there?

[20:00:41] <wa1800z> the topdown approach, what would be the cinc role

[20:00:49] <wa1800z> in a distributed ca

[20:01:20] *** Mode #cyberarmy +vvv [gmw] camel zerhash by wa1800z

[20:01:27] <camel> ty :)

[20:01:51] <Ploy> Personally I think it might be useful to have multiple 'cincs', like a board of directors, almost

[20:01:59] <frispy> i personally think the cinc role is no longer needed. In the past far too much emphasis was put onto this rank and it has been a point of contention for too long

[20:02:01] <Ploy> So no one person has 'absolute power' so to speak

[20:02:03] <zerhash> i think its safe to say that all of CA needs to be unified by a common mission

[20:02:22] <zerhash> the CinC is the one responsible for that mission and its execution

[20:02:29] <wa1800z> i agree that the cinc role has grown into a too big of a burden for a single person, imho, and we weren't even distributed

[20:02:44] <zerhash> i dont think so

[20:02:50] <Ploy> Maybe it's worth going to a Director-based structure then?

[20:03:03] <zerhash> i think the CinC needs to be active and very much hands on with the success

[20:03:25] <Ploy> Or committee-based rather

[20:03:35] <zerhash> with proper delegation of duties it will run smoother for him

[20:03:50] <zerhash> i dont think a committe is right for CA

[20:03:54] <wa1800z> zerhash, history shows us that cinc get worn out pretty quickly. and they are too easy to blame for everything.

[20:04:08] <zerhash> thats part of the hat

[20:04:17] <-> [gmw] is now known as gmw

[20:04:27] <zerhash> if you are warn out step aside

[20:04:53] <wa1800z> so you want a new cinc every 6 months? :)

[20:04:53] <zerhash> as for committee's, we already have enough difficulty comming to a descision

[20:04:57] <frispy> I wouldnt want to take the risk of burning out another cinc

[20:05:03] <camel> history also shows that the longest running cincs were monarchy-like

[20:05:20] <_Penguin> yup

[20:05:23] <Ploy> wa1800z: So what's in between having a singular body in charge, or a few individuals?

[20:05:32] <wa1800z> i'm not hot for comittees, but will the cinc be really able to constructively enforce decisions over a distributed ca?

[20:05:45] <_Penguin> stuff getting done started to slow down round here when it all got talked about way too much

[20:05:46] <Asmodai> yeah, those who were the CinC's for the longest had absolute control... none of this pseudo-democracy stuff

[20:05:50] <frispy> i doubt it

[20:06:12] <zerhash> what is he enforcing waz

[20:06:38] <wa1800z> whatever mission, policy or direction?

[20:06:49] <camel> so a committee like a parliment to make suggestions to the cinc would be the best solution

[20:06:50] <wa1800z> "you do that, you do this, and you help him with that"

[20:06:53] <zerhash> if we are talking distributed like how osix and pcp run

[20:07:06] <Asmodai> actually, I don't think a CinC should have to do any enforcing

[20:07:07] <Asmodai> at all

[20:07:08] --> masterkeylink (matthewsta@ca-F74C3C2.dhcp.kgpt.tn.charter.com) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:07:08] <-> masterkeylink is now known as roseowns

[20:07:13] <Asmodai> that's when the position becomes too much work

[20:07:13] <zerhash> their command structures are strong enough to not require micromanagement

[20:07:28] <Asmodai> rather like a Chairman... a CinC would be responsible for defining the direction

[20:07:30] <wa1800z> Asmodai, i'm for relying on good faith of each node

[20:07:33] <-> roseowns is now known as masterkeylink

[20:07:37] <Asmodai> the enforcing would be up to those who consider themselves staff

[20:07:52] <Ploy> I agree with Asmodai

[20:08:08] <frispy> so why have a cinc?

[20:08:13] <zerhash> tbh i dont think 'staff' is a viable option

[20:08:14] <wa1800z> that's what cinc been doing for some time now

[20:08:16] <zerhash> let alone 'exec'

[20:08:23] <Ploy> wa1800z: But that leaves things open to compromise, I think

[20:08:28] <-- iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has quit (Ping timeout)

[20:08:40] <Asmodai> zerhash, then CA degrades into a free-for-all?

[20:08:41] <zerhash> do we really need two groups managing a single command?

[20:08:50] <Asmodai> ok, ditch this military crap too

[20:08:56] <zerhash> thats like having 17 bosses

[20:09:01] <Asmodai> start thinking in either community or business terms

[20:09:07] <Asmodai> a business has heaps of 'bosses'

[20:09:14] <Asmodai> each responsible for a particular element

[20:09:15] --> iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:09:20] <wa1800z> no

[20:09:20] <Asmodai> staff should work the same

[20:09:22] <wa1800z> don't think of business

[20:09:26] <wa1800z> we are not doing business

[20:09:29] <Asmodai> wa1800z: the analogy works

[20:09:30] <zerhash> i dont think that works

[20:09:30] <Ploy> Asmodai: Board of Director-based structure? :)

[20:09:31] <frispy> and direction lead by a board

[20:09:36] <wa1800z> i don't agree it works :)

[20:09:37] <Asmodai> Ploy: no

[20:09:47] <Asmodai> but staff members who are good at doing whatever they do

[20:09:58] <wa1800z> we are having fun and hopefully creating an environment of hackers

[20:10:01] <Ploy> Oooh, right

[20:10:05] <Asmodai> such as people who look after dbs... php... etc

[20:10:05] <camel> the term tribunal would be most apropos

[20:10:08] <Asmodai> so staff actually maintain

[20:10:16] <Asmodai> rather than sit there being all 'i amz staffz'

[20:10:22] <zerhash> what makes them staff then?

[20:10:22] -*- Ploy nods

[20:10:26] <Ploy> I agree with that

[20:10:32] <ion> give me the domain name and the CinC crown.

[20:10:33] <zerhash> plumbers are staff?

[20:10:38] <ion> I'll fix this broke shit for you.

[20:10:40] --> SAJChurchey (SAJChurche@osix.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:10:43] <ion> I'll tell you what you'll like.

[20:10:44] <zerhash> exec has been doing all the plumbing in the past

[20:10:46] <ion> and you'll love it!

[20:10:52] <Asmodai> zerhash: yes, and that's way too closed

[20:10:59] <Asmodai> remove this special crap from staff

[20:11:05] <Asmodai> staff are people who help maintain the community

[20:11:06] -*- camel hands ion the plunger

[20:11:10] <zerhash> i think plumbers is a good group to have

[20:11:14] <zerhash> but why should they be staff

[20:11:18] <zerhash> or exec

[20:11:21] <ion> exactly

[20:11:23] <Ploy> Because they're the ones maintaining everything

[20:11:25] <Asmodai> well, let's look at other projects

[20:11:28] <Asmodai> a plumber can write code

[20:11:29] <ion> where in the world are the IT staff the one

[20:11:31] <Ploy> Not just sitting round pretending to be useful

[20:11:33] <Asmodai> but an uber plumber can commit code

[20:11:36] <ion> *one's running the company?

[20:11:41] <Asmodai> the uber plumber having more access, because they're trusted

[20:11:43] <Asmodai> that's staff

[20:11:52] <wa1800z> so running a ca node entitles you to a plumber group?

[20:11:59] <Asmodai> that's not what I'm saying

[20:12:01] <zerhash> so...

[20:12:08] <zerhash> the plumbers can be a part of staff

[20:12:12] <zerhash> but not necessarily

[20:12:15] <-- iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has quit (Ping timeout)

[20:12:16] <ion> making CA a technogcracy has also shown its weaknesses.

[20:12:23] <zerhash> so why have staff?

[20:12:29] <zerhash> just make them committers

[20:12:41] <Asmodai> what happens if there is no staff?

[20:12:44] <Asmodai> what is the alternative?

[20:12:48] <ion> just because you can code doesn't mean you have any level of responsibility or leadership skill.

[20:12:49] <zerhash> the chain of command

[20:12:55] <zerhash> exactly ion

[20:12:56] <Asmodai> ok, let's ditch this military crap

[20:13:03] <Asmodai> and chain of command == staff

[20:13:07] <zerhash> CyberArmy != CyberBusiness

[20:13:12] <Asmodai> that's why officers of Colonel or above are called 'Staff Officers'

[20:13:16] <wa1800z> ion, but it means you can get things done

[20:13:22] <wa1800z> which is a lot :)

[20:13:33] <zerhash> i think now more than ever we need to use that structure

[20:13:38] <Asmodai> why?

[20:13:43] <ion> having a database to maintain and a community to lead are not the same thing.

[20:13:45] <Asmodai> that benefit does a rigid chain of command confer?

[20:13:50] <Asmodai> *what...

[20:13:55] <zerhash> as it always ensures delegation of responsibility with someone to replace

[20:14:07] <ion> just because I finished my code on time and maintained proper backups doesn't mean I should be in charge of the company.

[20:14:08] <Asmodai> and there's no other alternatives? :)

[20:14:14] --> iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:14:17] <ion> it means I did my fucking job ;)

[20:14:22] <wa1800z> define lead

[20:14:28] <wa1800z> lead to what?

[20:14:31] <zerhash> weve looked at several alternatives

[20:14:35] <ion> that's a different discussion.

[20:14:37] <zerhash> i dont think staff has worked

[20:14:41] <zerhash> nor will work

[20:14:46] <Asmodai> why not?

[20:14:58] <zerhash> no delegation of responsibility

[20:15:02] <Ploy> It didn't work last time because it was still rank-based.

[20:15:08] <Asmodai> is that not a problem with the implementation, then?

[20:15:20] <zerhash> nobody acknowledged rank at that level ploy

[20:15:38] <zerhash> unless you were vapor lol jkz

[20:15:42] <Asmodai> the fact that some staffers were not given any responsibility isn't an inherent problem with the whole idea of 'staff'

[20:15:50] <wa1800z> we will have to drop that topic in 10 mins, to try to discuss the mission statement a bit

[20:15:58] <zerhash> leadership starts at the top

[20:16:05] <zerhash> maybe why there was a burnout

[20:16:13] <frispy> why cant it be community based?

[20:16:25] <zerhash> explain frisp

[20:16:25] <Asmodai> leadership also requires people to set an example

[20:16:31] <wa1800z> why are we insisting on explicit leadership?

[20:16:34] <Asmodai> and leadership also requires something called initative

[20:16:39] <Asmodai> we're not

[20:16:44] <frispy> my point too waz

[20:16:49] <camel> to be honest (from a ca laymans terms) the staff who works is an honored position but those that arent elected by the hierarchy to help with the deep plumbing usually are excluded from any ranks (not that those ranks are deserved), but anyone who works on staff should do so out of a true political reason and not for recognition . thus it makes only those that want to work do so and those that cant not feel so bad cause they cant make a rank. then you have on

[20:16:49] <camel> ly two types of people, those that are members and those that are members that produce. that might be an incentive to learn the skills it would take to help those that have the ultimate say so.

[20:16:52] <Asmodai> I'm just saying that 'staff' could well be a handy thing in the long run

[20:17:16] <-- iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has quit (Ping timeout)

[20:17:38] <wa1800z> each node can have the structure it wants, network level, as long as people are still communicating, we should be fine, no?

[20:17:49] <wa1800z> i mean, nothing is enforceable, either way

[20:17:55] <Asmodai> and what about the top level... that runs itself magically? :)

[20:18:04] <zerhash> CinC

[20:18:07] <Asmodai> meh

[20:18:10] <zerhash> VCinC

[20:18:10] <Asmodai> so the CinC does everything?

[20:18:11] <wa1800z> you can be empowered by an implicit leadership, or not, your choice

[20:18:13] <zerhash> Brigade heads

[20:18:20] <Ploy> zerhash: that setup doesn't work.

[20:18:20] <Asmodai> meh

[20:18:22] <Asmodai> old CA

[20:18:25] <camel> cinc and those it chooses as its staff

[20:18:28] -*- Asmodai goes back to being idle

[20:18:32] <camel> yes asmo

[20:19:01] <zerhash> staff/exec was more than idle for the year

[20:19:05] <Asmodai> yeah

[20:19:08] <zerhash> they were here to support the CinC

[20:19:25] <Asmodai> you just continue to obsess about the particular failure of an implementation that we had

[20:19:28] <zerhash> how was this being run?

[20:19:34] <Ploy> And look where it got them... A community constantly rebelling

[20:19:34] --> iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:19:35] <Asmodai> ignore the actual benefits of the notion of 'staff'

[20:19:45] <zerhash> im trying to

[20:19:45] <Asmodai> and continue to be obtuse about the position of CinC and chain of command

[20:19:48] <zerhash> but you insist on it

[20:20:02] <Asmodai> because I am not talking about /this/ particular implementation

[20:20:15] <zerhash> then cut the jazz and be specific

[20:20:15] <frispy> I know what your say Asmodai i just think its time to try something different

[20:20:20] <wa1800z> Asmodai, you envisioning a staff as a leadership entity over the network, or simply as a "communication" group?

[20:20:21] <Asmodai> you're saying something akin to 'BASIC fails because GWBASIC fails' imo

[20:20:30] <Asmodai> wa1800z: neither

[20:20:44] <wa1800z> what else then? :)

[20:20:56] <camel> Anarchy!

[20:21:06] <wa1800z> (5 minutes before we drop this)

[20:21:15] <Asmodai> wa1800z: people who actually *maintain* the infrastructure

[20:21:33] <Asmodai> people resonsible for checking the code before committing

[20:21:34] <wa1800z> Asmodai, aggregated from all nodes?

[20:21:46] <Asmodai> people responsible for maintaining key servers or whatnot

[20:21:48] <zerhash> i think it was an issue when there were more active staffers doing nothing than were in the brigades. we have a tendency of spreading ourselves thin of manpower

[20:21:48] <wa1800z> Asmodai, we are talking about multiple node, or not thou?

[20:21:52] <Asmodai> people responsible for keeping web servers up

[20:21:55] <frispy> at the top level yes waz

[20:21:56] <zerhash> and having too much meat on the top

[20:22:06] <Asmodai> wa1800z: it's scales... so at whatever level :)

[20:22:21] <Ploy> So staff == maintenance group?

[20:22:26] <zerhash> so you are talking about plumbers.

[20:22:30] <Asmodai> no :)

[20:22:33] <frispy> i would have each node decide on how they want to run it

[20:22:34] <Asmodai> it's not exclusive to that

[20:22:36] <wa1800z> but each node is independent, no?

[20:22:40] <frispy> i dont care much what they do

[20:22:41] <Asmodai> irrelevant

[20:22:47] <Asmodai> ok, let me draw a real simple analogy

[20:22:49] <Asmodai> IRC

[20:22:53] <Asmodai> what do we have right at the top?

[20:22:53] <frispy> they can implement any style they wish

[20:23:01] <Asmodai> netadmins and people responsible for the whole network

[20:23:02] <frispy> netstaff

[20:23:07] --> k0rn (k0rn06@ca-E402642.tampabay.res.rr.com) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:23:09] <Asmodai> under that... server admins who are responsible for their local ircd

[20:23:25] <-- iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has quit (Ping timeout)

[20:23:27] <Asmodai> it scales... doesn't matter what Unix or whatever the ircd runs on

[20:23:34] <Asmodai> the server staff are responsible for that

[20:23:42] <wa1800z> but local admins agree to permit control of their resources, right?

[20:23:42] <Asmodai> but the network staff are responsible for the entity as a whole

[20:23:57] <ion> Asmo wants power!

[20:24:15] <Asmodai> waz: not always

[20:24:15] <zerhash> this seems to be a good scheme for development

[20:24:28] <wa1800z> and how are netadmins selecte?

[20:24:31] <Asmodai> sure, network staff might have o:lines - the mark of 'rank'

[20:24:32] <wa1800z> *selected

[20:24:37] <Asmodai> but not always logins to the underlaying Unix

[20:24:47] <Asmodai> so, when I say staff

[20:24:52] <Ploy> wa1800z: Usually because of their experience?

[20:24:53] <Asmodai> I do not mean anything like the horrid mess we had

[20:25:04] <frispy> all network admins would have shell access

[20:25:14] <wa1800z> you say people that operate resources

[20:25:15] <wa1800z> ok

[20:25:15] <ion> says you!

[20:25:23] <ion> you're not getting a shell on any of my boxes! ;P

[20:25:24] <wa1800z> we agree on that already

[20:25:27] <zerhash> i dont think this works for descision making and leadership

[20:25:31] <Asmodai> operate resources, and does stuff that is public-facing

[20:25:34] <Asmodai> so, PR or whatever too

[20:25:39] <wa1800z> what is their exact purpose, thou?

[20:25:43] <frispy> we are just talking irc here aint we?

[20:25:46] <Asmodai> maintaining the entity as a whole

[20:25:47] <wa1800z> as a staff

[20:25:54] <wa1800z> as opposed to be being only responsible for their node

[20:25:55] <Asmodai> frisp, I was using it as an analogy

[20:26:18] <wa1800z> time is up

[20:26:35] <wa1800z> do we agree we should dig this irc staff analogy a bit more?

[20:26:40] <Ploy> Yes

[20:26:41] <wa1800z> like, it is the right way?

[20:26:50] <wa1800z> anyone says no?

[20:27:08] <zerhash> we should just drop the 'staff' name from these guys

[20:27:22] <wa1800z> zonk will do

[20:27:30] <frispy> irc works well

[20:27:34] <wa1800z> the zonkers

[20:27:44] <wa1800z> ok

[20:27:45] <frispy> due to we have the right people with the right access inplace

[20:28:01] <wa1800z> 3. How should the new direction be reflected in the mission statement?

[20:28:10] <wa1800z> anyone wants to say something about that?

[20:28:14] <wa1800z> i'm looking for keywords

[20:28:29] <ion> 'scalable'

[20:28:32] <ion> 'distributed'

[20:28:33] <wa1800z> so maybe next time we can have a working group for a new mission statement

[20:28:36] <ion> 'zonkers'

[20:29:07] <frispy> zonkers has to be in there somewhere

[20:29:17] <wa1800z> crypto is an obvious theme

[20:29:18] <ion> ;)

[20:29:22] <wa1800z> hackers as well

[20:29:25] --> iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:29:48] <ion> I think the existing mission statement was the best.

[20:30:01] <Ploy> Does it still apply though?

[20:30:09] <ion> we don't need to define technicalities of how we achieve our mission within the statement itself.

[20:30:18] <wa1800z> "private jurisdiction to promote X outside the abusive or misguided control of x and y"

[20:30:39] <wa1800z> ion, pengo's you mean?

[20:30:46] <camel> Well good luck all, I must cook steak. Later

[20:31:02] <ion> "An association of networks, servers, and users, unified in the common goal of freedom of information and the pursuit of knowledge"

[20:31:05] <ion> done

[20:31:06] <ion> next?

[20:31:16] <zerhash> what is our goal?

[20:31:27] <wa1800z> freedom of information is good

[20:31:28] <zerhash> what do we want 90% of our focus to be

[20:31:31] <ion> freedom of information and pursuit of knowledge.

[20:31:38] <wa1800z> zerhash, being hackers?

[20:31:49] <ion> if the word 'hacker' is in the mission statement...I quit forever.

[20:31:51] <zerhash> i think hacking needs to come back

[20:32:01] <wa1800z> ion, isn't that a bit redundant?

[20:32:05] <Ploy> I think the whole "deregulated internet" bit was a bit lofty

[20:32:07] <wa1800z> ion, why? :)

[20:32:07] <zerhash> our mission is to turn ion into a hacker!

[20:32:08] <zerhash> lol

[20:32:27] <wa1800z> think of cyberarmy as private place

[20:32:29] <ion> because it's a stupid and misunderstood and misued word.

[20:32:31] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v masterkeylink by decoder

[20:32:40] <wa1800z> with your own definitions of things

[20:32:41] <ion> define 'hacker'...don't say it.

[20:32:41] <Ploy> ion: Indeed

[20:32:42] --> MDalby_ (MDalby@ca-247EE5DD.zone9.bethere.co.uk) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:32:51] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v iota by decoder

[20:32:51] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v k0rn by decoder

[20:32:51] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v MDalby_ by decoder

[20:32:51] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v nihil by decoder

[20:32:51] *** Mode #cyberarmy +v SAJChurchey by decoder

[20:33:05] <zerhash> maybe a mission statement geared around improving the understanding of system infultration for the purpose of good?

[20:33:08] <wa1800z> ion, the "free" ?

[20:33:22] <zerhash> or having sex with midgits

[20:33:30] <Ploy> zerhash: You're thinking of int there.

[20:33:34] <ion> zerhash: again, too narrow.

[20:33:43] <zerhash> midgets?

[20:33:47] <ion> if you define too much in the mission statement, you limit your audience.

[20:33:49] <Ploy> Yeah :P

[20:34:00] <wa1800z> i like ion's statement

[20:34:04] <wa1800z> could use a few more keywords

[20:34:06] <MDalby_> midgets make a great spitroast!

[20:34:14] <masterkeylink> really now

[20:34:20] <ion> waz, of course...but you get the idea of where I'm going with it.

[20:34:50] <masterkeylink> are we still talking about the site

[20:35:10] <Ploy> masterkeylink: The whole community/ideal, etc not the site

[20:35:17] <ion> masterkeylink: you weren't banned. read your buffer.

[20:35:19] <wa1800z> "An association of networks unified in the common goal of freedom of information. we pursue knowledge and aim to ..."

[20:35:22] <masterkeylink> true

[20:35:26] <zerhash> 'to facilitate learning of system analysis and design'

[20:35:33] <zerhash> i dont even know what i just said

[20:35:34] <masterkeylink> teach

[20:35:37] <MDalby_> on the forefront or emerging technology?

[20:35:39] <wa1800z> what is a good unlame wording for "freeing minds". or that's an oxymoron?

[20:35:39] <MDalby_> of*

[20:35:49] <ion> wa1800z: enlightenment

[20:35:53] <MDalby_> lol

[20:35:57] <MDalby_> scientology mutch!

[20:36:02] <zerhash> whos minds would be freed

[20:36:05] <zerhash> and how do we free it

[20:36:07] <wa1800z> lol

[20:36:08] <wa1800z> yeah

[20:36:08] <zerhash> free it from what?

[20:36:10] <ion> how about Buddhaism you prol

[20:36:15] <wa1800z> freaky

[20:36:16] <wa1800z> lol

[20:36:26] <zerhash> fuck it guys

[20:36:27] <wa1800z> minefields. yet cool

[20:36:30] <zerhash> lets just make a porn site

[20:36:36] <zerhash> make it all army genre

[20:36:40] <ion> anyway, the point of a good mission statement is for it to be lofty and idealistic, without being defining and restricting.

[20:36:42] <wa1800z> zerhash, that was the plan back in 99

[20:36:43] <zerhash> we will split the profit

[20:36:47] <zerhash> rofl

[20:36:49] <Ploy> I was waiting for someone to make that idiotic suggestion -_-

[20:36:50] <wa1800z> but we were minors still

[20:36:54] <ion> when you use specifics, then you are expected to focus and excel in those things.

[20:36:57] <zerhash> cybertube

[20:37:01] <wa1800z> so we could't perform

[20:37:10] <zerhash> lol

[20:37:12] <zerhash> well ion

[20:37:17] <zerhash> i think we need to excell at something

[20:37:30] <ion> mission statement A: we're here to teach Unix and Perl

[20:37:33] <zerhash> history has shown that cau seems to pull the most weight

[20:37:46] <ion> mission statement B: we're here in the essense of community in the information age.

[20:37:50] <wa1800z> zerhash, general pursue of knownlege is good. we are enough things to worry about excelling at, work-wise

[20:37:53] <wa1800z> *have

[20:37:56] <wa1800z> bleh

[20:38:16] <masterkeylink> we are a community dedicated to teching security and programming

[20:38:34] <wa1800z> security is the mother of all skills

[20:38:36] <zerhash> masterkey is right

[20:38:40] <wa1800z> IT, that is

[20:38:56] <zerhash> however i dont think it is what we want to become

[20:38:58] <ion> if CA as a whole has an all-ecompassing mission statement, then it can be left up to individual members or node operators to focus on whichever angle of the blanket mission they choose.

[20:39:07] <MDalby_> this is true

[20:39:11] <ion> maybe I'm not here for security and/or programming.

[20:39:14] <wa1800z> ion, yeh

[20:39:18] <ion> maybe I'm here for IRC and networking.

[20:39:26] <wa1800z> ion, hippie

[20:39:34] <ion> I'm just making an example :P

[20:39:37] <zerhash> thats the CinCs delegation to the units

[20:39:49] <ion> that's your choice on how to delegate your node.

[20:39:54] <MDalby_> I thought we were trying to get away from the top down model

[20:40:01] <ion> zerhash: you are now in charge of PASCAL

[20:40:09] <ion> MDalby_: You are now in Charge of OpenVMS

[20:40:12] <ion> that doesn't work!

[20:40:17] <masterkeylink> i used to have our original mission statement copyed

[20:40:23] <zerhash> in perl there are many ways to do it... in pascal youll be lucky to find one

[20:40:28] <wa1800z> "cyberarmy is an association of networks unified in the common goal of freedom of information. security is our prime focus in our goal of ... "

[20:40:40] --> s17 (username@www.tech.ie) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:40:43] <zerhash> ion: dont just delegate lol

[20:40:44] <ion> zerhash: my point being, you can leave it up to someone else to define what you're here for. Defeats the sense of community.

[20:40:53] <zerhash> ion: use your members for their strengths

[20:41:00] <zerhash> i thought that was obvious

[20:41:09] <ion> let them prove their strengths based on their interests.

[20:41:20] <zerhash> ya!

[20:41:35] <zerhash> its this model that is going to make a mission statement hard to staple

[20:41:46] <zerhash> unlike a company that moves forward with a goal

[20:41:49] <wa1800z> there is common denominators

[20:41:55] <-- iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has quit (Connection reset by peer)

[20:41:55] <zerhash> we are working from the bottom up

[20:42:02] <ion> rank, prestige, authority, etc...these should be things gained in retrospect after striving towards something you are interested in and contributing to a community that you are passionate about.

[20:42:03] <zerhash> so what the people want, we will be

[20:42:08] <wa1800z> information freedom encompasses hackers idea;s

[20:42:15] <wa1800z> and illegal stuff as well

[20:42:21] <zerhash> and freedom of minds right waz?

[20:42:22] <ion> it shouldn't be about fulfilling some pre-defined role as delegated by a staff or CinC.

[20:42:28] <wa1800z> for your own definition of freedom

[20:42:52] <ion> we will be the people...and we will provide what we want.

[20:43:02] <wa1800z> zerhash, if i can find the appropriate way to articulate that particular thought.

[20:43:25] <zerhash> lol its ok

[20:43:28] <zerhash> im just busting balls now

[20:43:33] <zerhash> i think i get you

[20:43:39] <masterkeylink> we had ready responce example and the honynet div i know thjat was all old school but they where there to teach dif things to the people remember we were here to protect the i9 nternet and awarness

[20:45:13] <zerhash> tbh i think we are complicating the shit out of this

[20:45:22] <MDalby_> i concur

[20:45:29] <zerhash> our old system was fundamentally good

[20:45:37] <masterkeylink> for years iv tryed to make peopple relize we are not hackers of the evil sort for example librarys had the site blocked i got them to unblock them

[20:45:43] <zerhash> there were problems which werent addressed which should have been

[20:46:07] <zerhash> i think meeting the old requirements in a more open way would clean things up with minimal hinderance

[20:46:52] <masterkeylink> yes indeed but we where as we where i seen things change in the few years the way it was was the way of the right

[20:47:02] --> iota (iota@operator.cyberarmy.net) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:47:14] <wa1800z> zerhash, isn't "meeting the old requirements in a more open way" what we are doing right now?

[20:47:24] --> m0nkee (m0nkee@google.com) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:47:25] <ion> CyberArmy is a collective association of networks, systems, administrators, developers, philosophers, students, teachers, hippies, faggots, liberals, and democrats drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and search for a global community in the information age. We comprise all races, religions, creeds, and nations of the earth. Our unifying desire for enlightenment and a deregulated internet makes us...TH

[20:47:33] <ion> just throwing that one out there.

[20:47:34] <ion> ;)

[20:47:41] <zerhash> waz, the more i listen the more it seems like we are recreating the wheel

[20:48:12] <ion> sorry...that came out more crass than I intended after I typed it.

[20:48:18] <zerhash> why recreate the wheel when we can make a quicker bearing

[20:48:21] <ion> it can be reworded.

[20:48:37] <masterkeylink> i always thought we where here to serve and protect the net

[20:48:46] <zerhash> ion: you should work for the UN

[20:48:48] <masterkeylink> to learn teach

[20:49:24] <masterkeylink> to learn and teach

[20:49:36] <-- MDalby_ (MDalby@ca-247EE5DD.zone9.bethere.co.uk) has left #cyberarmy

[20:49:57] <wa1800z> ion, offhand, i'd limit it to "association of networks", i like "drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and search for a global community in the information age"

[20:50:15] <wa1800z> i'm sure we can iron that over the week thou

[20:50:17] --> MDalby_ (MDalby@ca-247EE5DD.zone9.bethere.co.uk) has joined #cyberarmy

[20:50:24] <ion> I'm just spewing. Pick up whichever pieces you like.

[20:50:28] <masterkeylink> we should put the site as it was we can rewrite the sorce

[20:50:30] <ion> I'll make a log for it.

[20:50:33] <ion> *logo

[20:50:39] <wa1800z> anyone else want to give it a try?

[20:52:07] <masterkeylink> maybe im old school been around a min

[20:52:09] <ion> CyberArmy is a collective association of networks drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and building of a global community in the information age.

[20:52:13] <ion> start with that.

[20:52:17] <ion> someone else wrap it up.

[20:52:24] <masterkeylink> good poner

[20:52:27] <masterkeylink> one

[20:52:39] <masterkeylink> typed to quik

[20:53:35] <wa1800z> ion, can you try to fit security and opensource in there?

[20:53:43] <wa1800z> other keywords

[20:53:58] <wa1800z> ion, as byproducts of freedom of information, that is

[20:54:13] <Ploy> Surely the umbrella of information age covers them?

[20:54:30] <Ploy> That's getting specific and limiting again

[20:54:35] <wa1800z> yeah

[20:54:53] <wa1800z> but they are important topics that ought explicitly to outline?

[20:55:00] <wa1800z> my opinion, at least

[20:55:02] <masterkeylink> cyberarmy dedicated to security and protection inf the people of the net to teach to make aware to the public the security risk to teach and to strif to make the net safe

[20:55:13] <masterkeylink> oops typos

[20:55:21] <wa1800z> no shit?

[20:55:38] <masterkeylink> bite it wa

[20:55:55] <masterkeylink> i type to damn fast

[20:56:12] <masterkeylink> forgive me???

[20:56:29] <wa1800z> i love you masterkeylink, you cover up for my own spelling atrocities

[20:56:38] <Ploy> CyberArmy is a collective association of networks drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and building of a global community in the information age. We embrace the limitless potential of Open Source and security (or somesuch)?

[20:57:08] <Ploy> Just need to adapt ion's statement, since it's neigh on perfect imho :D

[20:57:12] <ion> CyberArmy is a collective association of networks drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and building of a global community in the information age.

[20:57:16] <ion> Our foundations are built upon the concepts of security, open-source, education, collaboration, trust, and respect. It is upon these foundations that we work to...

[20:57:22] <ion> what do we work to do?

[20:57:25] <ion> :D

[20:57:41] <Ploy> further humanity! :P

[20:57:43] <masterkeylink> ok that is good

[20:58:11] <ion> ...we work to FREE THE ZONKERS!!!!

[20:58:28] <Ploy> Or 'it is upon these foundations that we work to further our own potential'?

[20:58:41] <wa1800z> was zonkers popular before i mentioned it? because i have no idea what it is?

[20:58:52] <ion> waz, I never heard it until you said it.

[20:58:54] <ion> It just stuck.

[20:58:58] <frispy> lol

[20:59:00] <ion> Ploy: nice...I've got it!

[20:59:01] <masterkeylink> there isnt much we can do for the community

[20:59:04] <wa1800z> i never heard it until i said it

[20:59:18] <Ploy> ion: Oh? :D

[20:59:24] <wa1800z> ok

[20:59:29] <wa1800z> wrap up

[20:59:52] <ion> We are a collective association of networks drawn together in our common desire for freedom of information, striving for knowledge, and building of a global community in the information age.

[20:59:56] <ion> Our foundations are built upon the concepts of security, open-source, education, collaboration, trust, and respect. It is upon these foundations that we work to further our potential as individuals and more decisively as a CyberArmy!

[21:00:05] <wa1800z> 1. what are the traps or weaknesses of a "the cyberarmy is the network" model?

[21:00:05] <wa1800z> no particular traps were raised, we need to dwelve into the technical aspects asap however.

[21:00:05] <wa1800z> an intresting parallel was drawn with the model of cyberarmy irc.

[21:00:07] <Ploy> ion: Brilliant :D

[21:00:10] <wa1800z> agreed?

[21:00:24] <masterkeylink> ion that is good

[21:00:25] <Ploy> Agreed

[21:00:27] <wa1800z> 2. What is the role of the cinc in a such model?

[21:00:27] <wa1800z> there is no need for explicit leadership, the model of network staff seems to be a good starting point.

[21:00:45] <wa1800z> 3. How should the new direction be reflected in the mission statement?

[21:00:45] <wa1800z> still in the works, keywords: "association of networks", "freedom of information", opensource, security

[21:01:01] <Ploy> I think 3 has been fulfilled, with ion's latest statement

[21:01:03] <masterkeylink> exactaly

[21:01:04] <wa1800z> please let me know if i overlooked a PoV

[21:01:22] <Ploy> It's as perfect as it can be made without limiting ourselves

[21:01:45] <masterkeylink> true agreed ploy

[21:01:48] <wa1800z> yeah it is good

[21:01:58] <wa1800z> i'll mention it

[21:02:04] <ion> thx :)

[21:02:08] <Ploy> One question though... Is that a new paragraph or sentence? :D

[21:02:14] <wa1800z> people will help iron it if there is need to be

[21:02:16] <ion> think of it with the 3 electron dudes standing next to it.

[21:02:23] <masterkeylink> almost like the oringinal

[21:02:26] <ion> the 3 electron dudes must stay!

[21:02:33] <wa1800z> absolutely

[21:02:35] <ion> word

[21:02:36] <Ploy> I'll see if I can mock up a snazzier 3 electron dudes

[21:02:39] <wa1800z> they are the zonkers

[21:02:45] <ion> YES!

[21:03:03] -*- ion adjourns himself on that note

[21:03:11] <Ploy> Take care :)

[21:03:14] <ion> later!

[21:03:18] <wa1800z> i'll work on the write up later tonight

[21:03:36] <Ploy> wa1800z: Want me to add it to /wiki Mission_Statement for now?

[21:04:07] --> Scub (ae@DarcKoncepts.org) has joined #cyberarmy

[21:04:08] <wa1800z> Ploy, would be cool, do mention it is a daft thou

[21:04:13] <Ploy> Will do

[21:04:19] <wa1800z> have it under blackcat

[21:04:22] <wa1800z> maybe

[21:04:23] <wa1800z> i don't know

[21:04:25] <wa1800z> your call

[21:04:34] <Ploy> Yeah, I'll add it to Blackcat

[21:04:37] <Ploy> Under Phase III?

[21:04:59] <wa1800z> phase II still, think

[21:05:05] <Ploy> Oki dokie

[21:05:06] <wa1800z> phase III is execution

[21:05:17] <wa1800z> but i just came up with that, so ;)

[21:05:30] <Ploy> Haha

[21:05:36] <wa1800z> do you feel today's discussion was useful?

[21:05:38] <Ploy> Oki, I'll add it to Phase II then

[21:05:41] <Ploy> Definitely

[21:05:44] <wa1800z> that's addressed to all

[21:05:53] <wa1800z> one inch closer?

[21:05:54] <Ploy> We've set ourselves potential

[21:06:17] *** Mode #cyberarmy -m by wa1800z

[21:06:21] <masterkeylink> i do but just remember the fundamentals that ca was orignaly buit on

[21:07:06] <Ploy> That's hardly forgettable, but we do need to move on at the same time

[21:08:11] <wa1800z> anyone else, comments, feedback ?

[21:08:27] <wa1800z> i should have made a questionnaire for you to answer lol

TOOLBOX
LANGUAGES