| 2 May 2024 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
Individual moderators should where possible recuse themselves from moderating responses to their substantive contributions this seems like a reasonable approximation of such a policy | 20:52:50 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | I understand that this is a difficult choice and sacrifice the mods would be doing, in service to this process | 20:53:01 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @squalus0:matrix.org
The CoC and associated rules bind all further discussions. So it makes sense to have agreement from the community, as defined by the contribution criteria. Otherwise we can't fully call this a community process. this is not possible without a constructive governance process, which is what we are building to begin with. the practical outcome of this constraint would be that no governance will happen | 20:53:36 |
 danielle | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
I understand that this is a difficult choice and sacrifice the mods would be doing, in service to this process fwiw i think in this case it would hurt more than help (infinisil and raito would be included in this) | 20:54:12 |
 shlevy | The PR is open to community feedback. I’ve already given some. | 20:54:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
I understand that this is a difficult choice and sacrifice the mods would be doing, in service to this process I do not think this would be 'in service to this process' any more than a well-considered conflict prevention policy would be, but it would significantly harm the process | 20:54:52 |
 @squalus0:matrix.org | The governance process is exactly what the community needs to create. The small group created by the inclusion criteria is capable of agreeing upon further ground rules. | 20:55:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (not to mention that it would result in the somewhat absurd situation where suspended users can participate but moderators cannot) | 20:55:28 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | squalus: for which a workable code of conduct is a prerequisite, which is what is being suggested here. again, if you have feedback on the CoC, please specify it in the PR as threaded and specific comments, this is not the place for that | 20:56:20 |
 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 |
