| 2 May 2024 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | not on its own, of course, but in context of a broader "collaborate, not compete" framework (like our rules set out) | 22:02:29 |
 danielle | and that tends to lead to better outcomes. | 22:02:30 |
 7c6f434c | Bluntly speaking we need a governance process for tradeoff optimisation in the cases where we are stuck competing | 22:03:45 |
| 7c6f434c | And I say it as the author of RFC 0046, which is one of the RFCs explicitly thinking in terms of conflicting interests | 22:04:18 |
| danielle | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
Bluntly speaking we need a governance process for tradeoff optimisation in the cases where we are stuck competing that is (hopefully) what the eventual Steering committee (or whatever it was called in the doc) is there for | 22:04:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: have you seen the 'reconciliation and compromise' section in the de-escalation guide, btw? because it addresses this | 22:04:32 |
| 7c6f434c | This is all about keeping things from blowing up, and valuable. But it is not, on its own, about making (at least) self-coherent decisions in a explicit-value-conflict situation. | 22:05:49 |
| 7c6f434c | It's how not to explode en route, but not how to make sure you arrive anywhere worth being. | 22:06:35 |
 edef | i think that itself is part of the next conversation, maybe? | 22:07:36 |
| 7c6f434c | Yes, sure | 22:07:50 |
| danielle | A decision making framework would fall under the scope of a zulip discussion indeed | 22:07:52 |
| edef | and i'd encourage you to bring it up there | 22:07:55 |
| edef | because i do think it is important | 22:08:02 |
 ronef | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Can you [board hat on] review https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/144 ? Merged | 22:08:04 |
| ronef | Also took most feedback and posted the first update here -> https://discourse.nixos.org/t/board-update-1-starting-process-and-transparent-comms/44735 | 22:08:33 |
 nyanbinary | O | 22:10:08 |
| nyanbinary | What about the suggestions for the coc? | 22:10:18 |
| danielle | nyanbinary: we can open a PR for the last few refinements | 22:10:45 |
| danielle | none of them change meaning or intent | 22:10:45 |
 raitobezarius | I'm logged in, if anyone has issues or concerns about Zulip, please reach out to me. | 22:12:07 |
| raitobezarius | I am caught up with the discussion and I see that folks had the Zulip folks answer them about the invitation limit. | 22:12:27 |
 infinisil | Perfect timing, let's get this Zulip party started! | 22:12:34 |
| raitobezarius | (note that Zulip folks are very easy to reach out to as long as TZ stuff works well) | 22:12:37 |
| danielle | (working on the PR now) | 22:12:46 |
 lovesegfault | itshappening.gif | 22:14:10 |
| infinisil | raitobezarius: I updated https://discourse.nixos.org/t/zulip-for-governance-discussions/44684#moderation-3 with the link to the new zulip CoC, can you do the same for GitHub? | 22:15:10 |
| infinisil | I'll start adding the CoC and deescalation docs to each stream topic | 22:15:38 |
| danielle | https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/145 - Jonas Chevalier / ronef tiny pr with a couple of refinements from suggestions that got missed in 144 | 22:17:08 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | updated the foundation statement to point to https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/143 | 22:17:16 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
raitobezarius: I updated https://discourse.nixos.org/t/zulip-for-governance-discussions/44684#moderation-3 with the link to the new zulip CoC, can you do the same for GitHub? done | 22:21:12 |
