| 2 May 2024 |
 samrose | joepie91 🏳️🌈: agree. If we emerge with good dispute resolution than anyone who disputes the legitimacy of the initial process should have an avenue | 21:53:57 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
Is it bannable if I say that it's least of evils when losing both the people who consider 14 days too long and the people who will not be convinced even if CoC application is acceptable but CoC provenance is questionable? no | 21:54:02 |
| @hexa:lossy.network | pointing out trade-offs is a reasonable thing to do | 21:54:17 |
| samrose | And/or they have the process itself agree joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 21:55:18 |
 shlevy | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
personally I am confident that those who have legitimate concerns and who need further assurance, can obtain that assurance through participation in the actual governance process itself, and do not require frontloading That’s fair. Then I guess it all turns on a legitimate governance process 😅 | 21:55:39 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yeah, we do need to make sure that we don't fuck this up, but I am cautiously optimistic | 21:56:06 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | we are much better prepared for this kind of thing now than we ever have been | 21:56:26 |
| samrose | In my experience it’ll boil down in part to how you resolve disputes | 21:56:51 |
| samrose | But also how discussion is integrated | 21:57:26 |
| samrose | And if you can convince the majority that they are co-responsible | 21:57:48 |
 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 |
