| 2 May 2024 |
 nyanbinary | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
nyanbinary: assuming that's you posting on the CoC PR, please leave your comments attached to a line so it becomes a thread there mrow | 20:32:41 |
| nyanbinary | :3 | 20:32:42 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that would be an example of getting the wording wrong :) | 20:32:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: thanks | 20:32:57 |
 shlevy | Anyway, the basic reason I don’t think this is necessary is that any agreement relies on good faith, and any arbitration process has to be amenable to evidence that one party has breached that | 20:33:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | wait | 20:33:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: I'm not seeing the thread? | 20:33:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * that would be an example of getting the wording wrong :) (as it would allow wielding that rule against any mention of the CoC) | 20:34:09 |
| shlevy | So if the governance process coordinators are happy to leave out clarification here I think that’s legitimate | 20:34:27 |
| nyanbinary | 
Download image.png | 20:34:54 |
| nyanbinary | pending lol | 20:34:56 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would be inclined to leaving it out, as it is already explained elsewhere | 20:35:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: oh you need to commit the review | 20:35:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | big green button at the top right | 20:35:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it lets you create multiple threads and then commit them all at once, that is why | 20:35:41 |
| nyanbinary | oki there :3 | 20:36:00 |
 danielle | nyanbinary: i would strongly reccomend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) | 20:36:13 |
| danielle | * nyanbinary: i would strongly recommend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) | 20:36:18 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: yep now I see it | 20:36:25 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
nyanbinary: i would strongly recommend using the suggestion feature rather than just that comment (but to answer, yes, already would be included under other aspects of diversity) Its a bit of a foreign concept to a lot of people so I feel like it would be safer to specifically call it out though. | 20:36:56 |
| danielle | (which is why i say to suggest the change so it can be applied 😅) | 20:37:28 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
(which is why i say to suggest the change so it can be applied 😅) Fair but I'm not exactly the best at wording things lol (idk where I would add it) | 20:39:50 |
| danielle | In reply to @niko:conduit.rs
Fair but I'm not exactly the best at wording things lol (idk where I would add it) add a bullet point that says - otherkin to the list? | 20:40:11 |
| nyanbinary | Oki :3 | 20:41:23 |
| danielle | (if you use the review suggestions button that is an easy +1) | 20:43:48 |
| danielle | i'm trying to avoid becoming the person who does all the writing :joy | 20:44:00 |
| danielle | * i'm trying to avoid becoming the person who does all the writing :joy: | 20:44:02 |
 @squalus0:matrix.org | Why is the incumbent moderation team deciding all of these CoC rules instead of the community? | 20:46:12 |
| shlevy | You are free to comment or propose your own | 20:46:42 |
| danielle | (I also was not a moderator when I wrote those rules) | 20:46:57 |
