!UUqahLbShAYkkrXmKs:matrix.org

DevOS

33 Members
Seeking help and geeking out together on https://github.com/divnix/devos & https://github.com/divnix/digga10 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
27 Oct 2021
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.orgwhose president 😅20:53:48
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)You mean, the dictator? 😎20:54:55
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa joined the room.23:38:49
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa left the room.23:39:26
@grahamc:nixos.org@grahamc:nixos.orgchanged room power levels.23:50:04
@grahamc:nixos.org@grahamc:nixos.org left the room.23:50:10
@mjolnir:nixos.org@mjolnir:nixos.orgchanged room power levels.23:51:57
@mjolnir:nixos.org@mjolnir:nixos.org left the room.23:52:07
28 Oct 2021
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.orgWho's the real dictator around here 🙄01:36:29
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org(please ignore my angry venting 😅)01:37:25
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)The changes with regard to this channel's status with respect to nixos hosting have been occasioned by the (heated) discussion in https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/11104:58:31
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)If my opinion is worth anything it would be that the quality of discussion is lamentable.05:01:09
@yusdacra:nixos.dev@yusdacra:nixos.dev
In reply to David Arnold (blaggacao)
The changes with regard to this channel's status with respect to nixos hosting have been occasioned by the (heated) discussion in https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/111
It's sad to see that discussion... I'd say the proposal was a fair one, although perhaps instead of a vague RFC like this, something like "disallow anything that is not functionally related to NixOS, nixpkgs, or Nix projects" could maybe work better, considering that is the purpose of nixos.org Matrix if I understand it right. And again, I find it sad that the discussion has gone some bad places...
07:40:27
@b12f:pub.solarb12f

I might be misunderstanding the issue here, but if I may indulge and give my opinion;

As far as I've understood, the primary objection to the private chat room is an ideological one; transparancy and openness is more important than a safe space for a minority community. Though I don't think I value the former any less than anyone else, I think transparency and openness are only valuable if everyone that wants to participate can participate. I hope we don't have to discuss the obvious problems of misogyny and queerhate that the tech community faces. I think having a space in which people can talk freely about these kinds of issues and how they relate to the nix community is an important one, and one that is needed to make sure we don't close ourselves off from decent chunks of the population. Transparency and openness start at the human level.

I agree that the RFC is too vague, but in a different way:

Alternatives

Allow private channels under certain well defined circumstances
Allow private channels with no restrictions
Keep the current ambiguous state of affairs

If I've understood correctly, the "current ambiguous state of affairs" is the existence of one private chatroom as a minority safe space. I might be too far removed from the project, but I don't see how this is a problem, as long as all technical decision making is done in the open and with plenty of room for discussion, which so far has seem to be the case.

10:37:32
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) b12f I think the RFC is quite fundamentally an attempt to (re-)balance transparency with privacy. I ultimately beleive it's a trade
-off and balancing act of reason and measure. I think it is without question an important issue, as have some noted, not only at the occasion of (inndeed only one) invite only channel.
12:53:36
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I totally acknowledge the need for privacy. And I totally acknowledge that it fundamentally conflicts with transparency. 12:54:59
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98, the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", the open, oublic & transparent discussion is a "war zone". 13:01:01
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98, the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone".13:01:19
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) All public discussions should be "safe spaces", in principle. 13:02:03
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98, the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", while the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone".13:02:33
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98 (surely others), the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", while the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone".13:03:07
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98 (surely others, too), the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel might be a "safe-house", while the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone".13:03:14
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98 (surely others, too), the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel (or anything else akin to it) might be a "safe-house", while the open, public & transparent discussion is a "war zone".13:03:43
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao)* I might want to add, that after this discussion & discussion in 98 (surely others, too), the very principle of "safe-spaces" seems to have turned into it's opposite. It almost seems as if said channel (or anything else akin to it) might be a "safe-house", while the open, public & transparent discussion between _individuals_ is a "war zone".13:04:03
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org

b12f: thank you for the well reasoned response. If only we could have had more of this in the RFC thread and less assumption, things would have been a lot more productive. With that said, I'd like to dive in a bit if you don't mind:

I hope we don't have to discuss the obvious problems of misogyny and queerhate that the tech community faces.

I get the sentiment here, but this is also partially an issue for me. Why shouldn't we discuss it? Isn't that a requirement for actual understand, organizing and acting? Also, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and I've seen plenty of examples of it in my own personal life and the wider internet, but I've yet to really see any major examples of this in any of the tech communities I have interacted with.

only valuable if everyone that wants to participate can participate.

Fully agree, but I think there is an important distinction to make here. Who is it exactly that made someone feel as though they couldn't participate? I think it matters if it's something external, vs an internal assumption without evidence. Not that I don't understand the latter, as I am totally familiar with feelings of shyness, and irrational fear of new people.

I just think, from my own experience at least, that this internal assumption is best addressed at a personal level, and a private chat with friends can surely be helpful with that as well, but what difference does it make if it is official or not? Either way, at some point I'd love for those individuals to just join us in the main chat, they may be surprised to find that myself and others would be more than happy to have them there.

Obviously, in the external case, things are different and moderation and understanding from the community and the leadership come in to play.

I think having a space in which people can talk freely about these kinds of issues and how they relate to the nix community is an important one

Absolutely! But in order to avoid that space from becoming an echo chamber which endlessly cycles through the problem without ever arrising at a solution, I personally think that space should eventually become the public rooms. A private chat is great to work up some courage, but at some point, if we really want to address something in the community, then it has to be addressed in the community yes?

13:05:03
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org *

b12f: thank you for the well reasoned response. If only we could have had more of this in the RFC thread and less assumption, things would have been a lot more productive. With that said, I'd like to dive in a bit if you don't mind:

I hope we don't have to discuss the obvious problems of misogyny and queerhate that the tech community faces.

I get the sentiment here, but this is also partially an issue for me. Why shouldn't we discuss it? Isn't that a requirement for actual understanding, organizing and acting? Also, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, and I've seen plenty of examples of it in my own personal life and the wider internet, but I've yet to really see any major examples of this in any of the tech communities I have interacted with. And that is a good thing!

only valuable if everyone that wants to participate can participate.

Fully agree, but I think there is an important distinction to make here. Who is it exactly that made someone feel as though they couldn't participate? I think it matters if it's something external, vs an internal assumption without evidence. Not that I don't understand the latter, as I am totally familiar with feelings of shyness, and irrational fear of new people.

I just think, from my own experience at least, that this internal assumption is best addressed at a personal level, and a private chat with friends can surely be helpful with that as well, but what difference does it make if it is official or not? Either way, at some point I'd love for those individuals to just join us in the main chat, they may be surprised to find that myself and others would be more than happy to have them there.

Obviously, in the external case, things are different and moderation and understanding from the community and the leadership come in to play.

I think having a space in which people can talk freely about these kinds of issues and how they relate to the nix community is an important one

Absolutely! But in order to avoid that space from becoming an echo chamber which endlessly cycles through the problem without ever arrising at a solution, I personally think that space should eventually become the public rooms. A private chat is great to work up some courage, but at some point, if we really want to address something in the community, then it has to be addressed in the community yes?

13:06:10
@blaggacao:matrix.orgDavid Arnold (blaggacao) I also beleive: a private chat is great to work up some courage. That's btw. +- how DevOS kicked off. 🙂😎 But I also see the solution to more "safe-spaces" and less "war-zone" in an open and honest discussion, not in private rooms of special interest. Solution, that is if we are actually looking for one. I am. 13:10:28
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org That's is a very important point. Cultivating a culture where the default public chat is assumed to be unsafe, equivalent to a culture of bad faith in my mind 13:14:07
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org * That's is a very important point. Cultivating a culture where the default public chat is assumed to be unsafe, is equivalent to a culture of bad faith in my mind 13:14:23
@timdeh:matrix.org@timdeh:matrix.org * That's is a very important point. Cultivating a culture where the default public chat is assumed to be unsafe is equivalent to a culture of bad faith in my mind 14:05:49

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6