| 2 May 2024 |
 infinisil | I trust people to be reasonable enough to not argue for a governance process that sucks :) | 21:58:25 |
| infinisil | * I trust most people to be reasonable enough to not argue for a governance process that sucks :) | 21:58:31 |
 7c6f434c | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I trust most people to be reasonable enough to not argue for a governance process that sucks :) Please add «knowingly» | 21:58:42 |
| infinisil | * I trust most people to be reasonable enough to not knowingly argue for a governance process that sucks :) | 21:58:56 |
 danielle | I'm trying real hard to make sure we don't repeat past mistakes and learn from elsewhere | 21:59:16 |
| 7c6f434c | I don't trust anyone, myself included, moderation team included, all people ever on the board of the Foundation included, not to do this accidentally. | 21:59:24 |
| danielle | * I'm trying real hard to make sure we don't repeat past mistakes and that we actually learn from elsewhere | 21:59:28 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: arguably that is why we have the "stop if you are told stop" rule :) | 21:59:51 |
| * infinisil has maybe too much trust in people | 22:00:01 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | defaulting to taking feedback seriously helps a lot in preventing bad decisions, after all | 22:00:38 |
| 7c6f434c | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
7c6f434c: arguably that is why we have the "stop if you are told stop" rule :) This rule does not help making any decisions though, let alone reasonable ones | 22:00:49 |
| danielle | I generally speaking trust that people are generally motivated to want to do things constructively and find common ground when they care. | 22:01:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: it does, in the sense that it leaves room for peer validation of ideas; it helps mitigate the common pattern of responding defensively and not taking feedback to heart | 22:02:04 |
| danielle | That caring sometimes means they get heated, and when that happens it's better to have a process that accepts it with an "apologize and move on", over one that needs heavy moderation | 22:02:18 |
|  David Mell (zraexy) joined the room. | 22:02:18 |
| 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 |
