| 2 May 2024 |
 raitobezarius | we cannot make this "nobody can delete" unfortunately | 16:15:12 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
i think we might want to adjust on the basis of the pace of conversation can you give an example | 16:15:28 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | Going back on what you said after someone has replied and the conversation has potentially moved on based on what was said … problematic | 16:16:01 |
 edef | yeah | 16:16:11 |
| edef | whereas on Discourse i'll often edit within a minute or so, because i've gotten a read with fresh eyes, and nobody has seen it yet | 16:16:35 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | 10-15 on discourse is a reasonable time, but now we're dealing with a chat platform | 16:16:40 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | * 10-15m on discourse is a reasonable time, but now we're dealing with a chat platform | 16:16:48 |
 @djacu:matrix.org | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
Going back on what you said after someone has replied and the conversation has potentially moved on based on what was said … problematic Also reiterating the historical point of these discussions. | 16:17:15 |
 patka | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
10-15m on discourse is a reasonable time, but now we're dealing with a chat platform (edited) Many people have experience with my frequent deletions, and it's annoying. I'd prefer to not let people delete stuff | 16:17:29 |
| edef | In reply to @hexa:lossy.network
10-15m on discourse is a reasonable time, but now we're dealing with a chat platform yeah, i just don't have a good sense of the pace, since Zulip is intended to facilitate a more asynchronous mode of chat | 16:18:29 |
 @lassulus:lassul.us | 10min delete timeout sounds ok | 16:18:31 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | we can iterate on that as we go | 16:18:55 |
| edef | i feel quite positive about no deletions, especially since we have edits and edit history | 16:18:57 |
| edef | it may create some minor inconvenience, but this is a medium of record for a decision with lasting effects | 16:19:30 |
| raitobezarius | I gather there's alignment on the edit / deletion situation as it is | 16:19:48 |
| edef | if anything it is likely a helpful reinforcement of the general "think before you type" attitude we expect of participants here | 16:20:44 |
 infinisil | I don't feel strongly about it | 16:22:11 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | we do need to communicate this clearly | 16:22:18 |
| infinisil | * I don't feel strongly about it, either is fine | 16:22:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (that this policy applies) | 16:22:31 |
| edef | setting out the general "this is a medium of record" vibe is important as a matter of legitimacy, and this can go with that | 16:23:25 |
| edef | and if people really do need freewheeling, off-the-record conversation, they can group up on matrix or something and present their findings in a more organised manner when they have them, as an escape hatch | 16:24:44 |
| edef | i expect most people partaking in a consensus-building process like this will be having individual conversations with other stakeholders as a matter of course anyhow | 16:25:30 |
| infinisil | What are our options exactly? Restricting deletions to admins and limiting edit to within the smallest timeframe sounds good to me | 16:25:53 |
| raitobezarius | this is what is implemented at the moment | 16:26:11 |
| edef | 10m is the lower bound? | 16:26:18 |
| raitobezarius | deletions to admin, edit up to 10 mn | 16:26:19 |
| raitobezarius | let me look | 16:26:22 |
| @djacu:matrix.org | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
What are our options exactly? Restricting deletions to admins and limiting edit to within the smallest timeframe sounds good to me I'd say restricting deletions to owners | 16:26:28 |
| edef | i think it's fine either way given edit history | 16:26:28 |
