| 2 May 2024 |
 ronef | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
ronef: you around? here, whatsup? | 21:49:56 |
 shlevy | I agree some people will perceive it that way regardless. The question is how much work/delay you’re willing to put in to convince people on the margins. I don’t even think it’s necessarily wrong to just jump in now, but it’s not a binary choice between interminable delay vs immediate moving forward | 21:50:08 |
 danielle | In reply to @ronef:matrix.org
here, whatsup? Can you [board hat on] review https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/144 ? | 21:50:25 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | shlevy: if I'm measuring by the comments landing in the github thread and the discourse thread, I don't think there's any mileage we're going to get out of this that is not better achieved by having this conversation on zulip | 21:50:48 |
 edef | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
I agree some people will perceive it that way regardless. The question is how much work/delay you’re willing to put in to convince people on the margins. I don’t even think it’s necessarily wrong to just jump in now, but it’s not a binary choice between interminable delay vs immediate moving forward no contest there, i'm just curious what kind of review period you have in mind | 21:50:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I've been monitoring both quite proactively) | 21:51:05 |
 samrose | Because if people think there is a legitimacy issue, there should be an ongoing way to resolve such a dispute | 21:51:08 |
| edef | we're eating into the budget for having conversations on zulip and establishing the constitutional assembly | 21:51:18 |
 @squalus0:matrix.org | I favor starting quickly as well. But I ask the board to allow the community process to decide the CoC and associated rules, rather than the existing moderation team. And therefore, to close PR144 without merging. | 21:52:04 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @samrose:matrix.org
Is this a one and done thing, will there likely be an ongoing way for the community to feed back and evolve the initial outcome? to begin with, the code of conduct for the governance venue only applies to the governance venue; it has no bearing on the community-wide policy now or in the future (unless such is decided in the governance talks, by the community) | 21:52:05 |
| edef | if we judge this to be substantively more important than the conversation it moderates, i am willing to hear that out, but i'm not sure how i would steelman that case | 21:52:06 |
| shlevy | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
no contest there, i'm just curious what kind of review period you have in mind Maybe a comment on the thread and other relevant places like: We are short on time and would like to move quickly here, this is intended to be just basic ground rules. If you have an objection that you think undermines the possibility of productive discussion, please comment in the next day | 21:52:06 |
 Claes | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
my concern is the perception of impartiality of the mod team, which is an issue we had on the main forum as well. if this gets tainted, it can affect the quality of the outcome as well.
but let's sleep on it. maybe we're all a bit anxious of the outcome of this process and this leads us to overthink this. it's possible that modding could be fairly minimal. has it been considered to appoint moderators external to the community for this process? i think even if there is a cost associated with it, it may be well spent money. | 21:52:25 |
| shlevy | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
if we judge this to be substantively more important than the conversation it moderates, i am willing to hear that out, but i'm not sure how i would steelman that case The issue is not the importance of the CoC as much as it is the importance of the governance process being perceived as legitimate. | 21:53:03 |
 7c6f434c | Is it bannable if I say that it's lest of evils when losing both thge 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? | 21:53:16 |
| danielle | In reply to @claesatwork:matrix.org
has it been considered to appoint moderators external to the community for this process? i think even if there is a cost associated with it, it may be well spent money. nobody, and i mean nobody, with long-term large oss moderation experience is gonna be willing to sign up for dealing with the nix situation | 21:53:17 |
| 7c6f434c | * 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? | 21:53:31 |
 infinisil | Let's give the board some room! | 21:53:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
The issue is not the importance of the CoC as much as it is the importance of the governance process being perceived as legitimate. 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 | 21:53:47 |
| infinisil | * Let's give the board some room! I'd like to hear their thoughts :) | 21:53:52 |
| 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 |
