| 2 May 2024 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | sorry | 22:33:41 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | governance discussion* | 22:33:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as a category | 22:33:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | used the wrong word there | 22:33:50 |
 danielle | ahhh | 22:33:50 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | like I said, getting late :p0 | 22:34:05 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * like I said, getting late :p | 22:34:06 |
 lovesegfault | How did y'all join the Zulip already? | 22:34:19 |
 edef | In reply to @lovesegfault:matrix.org
How did y'all join the Zulip already? we were testing stuff | 22:34:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | lovesegfault: people involved in preparing and setting up the zulip have an account already | 22:34:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but yeah, uh, I'm not sure how to actually go, mechanically, about locking governance discussion on the discourse | 22:35:39 |
| lovesegfault | Ah, I see :) | 22:35:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | because that is probably going to have to cover threads as well? otherwise people will just direct their conversation to the nearest open thread | 22:35:57 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | What does that even mean? Locking content that touches governance? | 22:36:06 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | Redirecting it to the Zulip? | 22:36:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yes; this was discussed a bit earlier, if governance discussion is left open on the discourse, then discourse becomes "the place where you go to argue governance if you do not meet the admission criteria, and either nobody is left to push back on that, or people who try to be in both places burn out and this will spill over to the zulip" | 22:36:57 |
 nyanbinary | Tbf maybe a Google Forum was a better idea than just telling people to put their contributions on a github issue :P | 22:37:11 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so if the zulip is to be the governance discussion venue, it must be the governance discussion venue | 22:37:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | singular | 22:37:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and that logically implies disallowing governance discussion on the discourse | 22:38:03 |
| edef | also helps ensure that the governance rules of engagement are the governance rules of engagement despite being limited to that venue | 22:38:50 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yeah | 22:39:06 |
| danielle | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
also helps ensure that the governance rules of engagement are the governance rules of engagement despite being limited to that venue fwiw they are limited to participants of the venue, but they do cover external incitement | 22:39:18 |
| edef | because they're a fair bit less meaningful if everyone who doesn't like them starts using discourse as a workaround | 22:39:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | you really do not want the discourse to become the governance rules opt-out :p | 22:39:28 |
| edef | * because they're a fair bit less meaningful if everyone who doesn't want to abide by them starts using discourse as a workaround | 22:39:34 |
| danielle | but yes i am a plus one on locking that | 22:39:41 |
| danielle | i don't know if mod power is enough tbh | 22:44:20 |
| danielle | * i don't know if mod power is enough to configure that | 22:44:28 |
| danielle | (but i assume hexa knows and can do it tomorrow / tell me where 🙈) | 22:44:41 |
