| 2 May 2024 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it is a bootstrapping operation to then make governance discussion about community-broad code of conduct possible | 20:48:02 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | On point: moderators should stay out of the conversation to avoid being seen as arbiters on opinions | 20:48:33 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * One point: moderators should stay out of the conversation to avoid being seen as arbiters on opinions | 20:48:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (the code of conduct for the community is within scope for what the new governance structure(s) will decide over) | 20:48:57 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | This has been an issue in the past | 20:48:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I do not think this is viable for a governance discussion specifically; moderators have some of the strongest insight in the (historical and current) dynamics within the community, and the policy changes affect them too | 20:49:43 |
 danielle | I've joined the team partially because of extensive governance experience to help keep things productive 😅 | 20:50:12 |
|  leona joined the room. | 20:50:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | they are very much a stakeholder | 20:50:17 |
| danielle | if that means i should leave the moderation team mid onboarding to be able to continue to do governance setup that is... amusing but technically doable? | 20:50:42 |
 shlevy | Individual moderators should where possible recuse themselves from moderating responses to their substantive contributions | 20:51:51 |
| danielle | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
One point: moderators should stay out of the conversation to avoid being seen as arbiters on opinions fwiw moderators do have to abstain from anything involving them by default | 20:51:51 |
 @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. | 20:52:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | basically: I am open to determining a way to deal with potential interests of conflict within discussions for moderators, but I strongly oppose excluding them from the conversation entirely | 20:52:27 |
| 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 |
