| 2 May 2024 |
 ronef | Back, what's the current status of the COC and Deescalation docs? | 20:56:41 |
 danielle | CoC is generally +1 - 1 suggestion to have applied still | 20:57:45 |
| danielle | deescalation is good | 20:57:48 |
|  fricklerhandwerk joined the room. | 21:01:56 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | squalus: emphasis on 'threaded' | 21:05:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it is not possible to thread against your post right no | 21:05:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * it is not possible to thread against your post right now | 21:05:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * it is not possible to thread against your post right now, because it is not attached to a line as a review comment | 21:05:35 |
 @squalus0:matrix.org | Should I delete it? | 21:05:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | preferably, to avoid confusion, and repost it attached to a line so that threading is possible | 21:06:17 |
| @squalus0:matrix.org | Thanks. Deleted it and put in on line 6 | 21:07:44 |
 infinisil | I have confirmation that our daily invite limit is at 3000! | 21:13:48 |
| infinisil | * I have confirmation that our daily invite limit is at 3000! 🎉 | 21:13:52 |
|  @nick_kadutskyi:matrix.org set a profile picture. | 21:19:12 |
| infinisil | Jonas Chevalier: You'd be including everybody except the most trusted members from the process 😅 | 21:20:55 |
| infinisil | I think you need to trust the moderators to not abuse their powers, and if you don't trust those moderators, appoint different ones | 21:21:10 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | can we specify what, concretely, is needed to pass PR 144? | 21:21:12 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
fwiw i think in this case it would hurt more than help (infinisil and raito would be included in this) 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.
| 21:22:24 |
 edef | i can see the case for a "separation of powers", but it seems hard to do practically. we have a finite amount of people with the right experience | 21:22:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: to put it bluntly: no amount of measures will assauge concerns of "mod partiality" | 21:22:52 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | there are specific concerns and issues that can be addressed, but a wholesale elimination of the concern will never happen, simply because a nonzero amount of participants in the process have a strong incentive to never let it be assauged | 21:23:31 |
| edef | i think the moderation team are capable of taking community feedback into account, and others can serve as ad-hoc facilitators and mediators if need be (in a pragmatic, and not strongly formalised sense) | 21:23:52 |
| danielle | 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.
fwiw i am probably going to propose that we basically adopt https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/committee-code-of-conduct/incident-process.md | 21:23:53 |
| danielle | which requires recusal | 21:24:10 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | if we exclude mods from the process, then the next claim will be "oh but the mods are secretly conspiring with such-and-such person because they clearly use the same talking points" | 21:24:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and then you will be throwing out people until there is nobody left except those arguing against moderation wholesale | 21:24:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | so let's address specific concerns if there are any, in a targeted manner, rather than trying to aim for some mythical "no concerns about mod partiality" | 21:24:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * so let's address specific concerns if there are any, in a targeted manner, rather than trying to aim for some mythical and ill-defined "no concerns about mod partiality" | 21:25:15 |
| edef | ie if someone is particularly concerned that mods are being too partial, someone who isn't under moderation threat can convey their concerns | 21:25:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think "mods should avoid moderating replies to their own messages where possible" is a reasonable approximation of a policy that avoids conflicts of interest, for example | 21:26:29 |
