| 2 May 2024 |
 David Sánchez | * Sorry if this has been brought up already, please feel free to point me for the references if any, but what’s “the community” here? Contributors to nixpkgs? | 20:25:27 |
 shlevy | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Is there a way to phrase that better so you would have understood this in the first read? The difference is quite subtle IMO so it's easy to misunderstand it. “apologize that harm was caused” would’ve been clearer I think. | 20:25:33 |
| shlevy | I don’t think this is necessary but it may be worthwhile to say “if you believe an accusation is being made in bad faith, please work with the moderators rather than counter-accusing or dismissing the claim” | 20:26:17 |
| shlevy | David Sánchez: There’s a list of criteria in the Zulip join issue | 20:26:40 |
| shlevy | https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/143 | 20:26:57 |
 danielle | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
I don’t think this is necessary but it may be worthwhile to say “if you believe an accusation is being made in bad faith, please work with the moderators rather than counter-accusing or dismissing the claim” Bad faith activity is already included fwiw | 20:27:15 |
| shlevy | Yes, that’s part of why I don’t think it’s necessary. The only reason I think it might be worth saying anyway is that there is an existing impression (justified or not) that some people have been leveraging these kinds of policies to get people moderated, and it’s easy enough to clarify that this policy is all under a presumption of good faith. | 20:28:15 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | nyanbinary: assuming that's you posting on the CoC PR, please leave your comments attached to a line so it becomes a thread | 20:28:42 |
 nyanbinary | oki | 20:29:00 |
| nyanbinary | :3 | 20:29:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (discussion will quickly become unmanageable otherwise) | 20:29:17 |
| danielle | In reply to @niko:conduit.rs
oki fwiw if you leave a suggestion to add things, it should be an easy accept when infinisil is back | 20:29:33 |
| shlevy | Hmm it looks like I don’t have the right to mark my thread as resolved, can a PR admin do so? | 20:30:09 |
 infinisil | Ping me if everything seems resolved with a suggestion! | 20:30:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
Yes, that’s part of why I don’t think it’s necessary. The only reason I think it might be worth saying anyway is that there is an existing impression (justified or not) that some people have been leveraging these kinds of policies to get people moderated, and it’s easy enough to clarify that this policy is all under a presumption of good faith. I see the argument, but I also feel that it's very easy to get the wording wrong and basically make third-party deescalation as well as "setting personal boundaries" impossible | 20:30:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (as is generally the risk of hardcoded rules) | 20:31:09 |
| shlevy | Maybe modify the bad faith invitations to engage in debate to say or leverage the CoC against another participant? | 20:32:13 |
| 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 |
