| 2 May 2024 |
|  @squalus0:matrix.org joined the room. | 20:15:00 |
 danielle | How much time do we want to spend replying to comments from people who aren't part of the nix community? | 20:18:26 |
 shlevy | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
shlevy: (thumbs up on the comment would be helpful if you agree with the summary, to confirm) Replied | 20:19:42 |
 7c6f434c | You want to say «not eligible for Zulip governance read-write access»? (what is a part of Nix community is still in air…) It's true that they kind of don't have true vested interest | 20:20:09 |
| 7c6f434c | * You want to say «not eligible for Zulip governance read-write access»? (what is to be a part of Nix community is still in the air…) It's true that they kind of don't have true vested interest | 20:20:35 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | shlevy: thanks | 20:23:14 |
 lovesegfault | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
How much time do we want to spend replying to comments from people who aren't part of the nix community? Almost none, IMO | 20:23:50 |
| lovesegfault | The most destructive thing to any discussion is someone with no skin in the game | 20:24:18 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
OK, I’m willing to sign on to this. 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. | 20:25:03 |
 David Sánchez | Sorry if this has been brought up steady, please feel free to point me for the references if any, but what’s “the community” here? Contributors to nixpkgs? | 20:25:12 |
| 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 |
