| 2 May 2024 |
 shlevy | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
Well, one could say that if the moderator agrees that the harm is non-performative the harming party promises to either apologise or leave the entire governance Zulip? I would be on board with this | 20:05:32 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @lovesegfault:matrix.org
I mean, there should be an appeals process to moderation decisions, but the community should design that during the constituent assembly IMO right, this is a consideration for what comes out of the governance process IMO, not the governance process itself | 20:06:14 |
| shlevy | I’m fine subjecting disputed harm questions to moderation. And again, I do not expect to harm anyone with anything I say, I don’t even expect heavy participation. But I do think it would be wrong to commit to a sincere apology for something I disagree with (I don’t even think it’s possible for such an apology to be sincere). | 20:07:55 |
 danielle | https://matrix.to/#/!VyoUhyWvlhSpFWWxHL:matrix.org/$FAIwNU0gtH55bmI6RNq_hqwf9eLGbXOKDf91MvL_83Y?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=0upti.me - we already discussed this. | 20:08:46 |
| danielle | * https://matrix.to/#/!VyoUhyWvlhSpFWWxHL:matrix.org/$FAIwNU0gtH55bmI6RNq_hqwf9eLGbXOKDf91MvL_83Y?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=0upti.me - we already discussed this (i'd suggest reading that first) | 20:09:13 |
 lovesegfault | In reply to @shlevy:matrix.org
I’m fine subjecting disputed harm questions to moderation. And again, I do not expect to harm anyone with anything I say, I don’t even expect heavy participation. But I do think it would be wrong to commit to a sincere apology for something I disagree with (I don’t even think it’s possible for such an apology to be sincere). It is entirely possible to sincerely apologize for an unintended effect of an intended action though | 20:09:27 |
 7c6f434c | I do believe different people put and expect quite different levels of sincerity in apologies | 20:09:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | shlevy: to be clear: the apology is for the harm, not for intent or action | 20:09:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | understanding the reason that something was harmful is a good thing to be doing, but it is not a dependency of the apology component | 20:10:01 |
| shlevy | In reply to @lovesegfault:matrix.org
It is entirely possible to sincerely apologize for an unintended effect of an intended action though As I said in the thread, I’m not talking about intent. If you unintentionally do wrong, you should apologize. | 20:10:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * shlevy: to be clear: the apology is for the harm, not for intent or action (intended or otherwise) | 20:10:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ie. you are not apologizing for what you did, you are apologizing for its impact | 20:10:44 |
| shlevy | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
shlevy: to be clear: the apology is for the harm, not for intent or action (intended or otherwise) OK, I’m willing to sign on to this. | 20:10:46 |
| danielle |
We take responsibility for our impact and our mistakes - if someone says that they have been harmed by our words or actions, we stop, listen, and then apologize sincerely and change behavior.
| 20:11:05 |
| danielle | ^ i was tempted to bold the impact bit, guess i should've done 😅 | 20:11:20 |
 infinisil | https://chat.zulip.org/#narrow/stream/138-user-questions/topic/Increasing.20daily.20invitation.20limit/near/1792372 | 20:11:43 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I am unhappy about github not auto-updating as new comments arrive | 20:13:14 |
| shlevy | Yeah I missed several | 20:13:27 |
| lovesegfault | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
We take responsibility for our impact and our mistakes - if someone says that they have been harmed by our words or actions, we stop, listen, and then apologize sincerely and change behavior.
Who are the arbiters who prevent this from being weaponized? | 20:13:49 |
| danielle | In reply to @lovesegfault:matrix.org
Who are the arbiters who prevent this from being weaponized? the zulip moderators? | 20:14:07 |
| shlevy | lovesegfault: If you think someone is accusing in bad faith, get a mod | 20:14:10 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | shlevy: I've noted this in the subthread on the PR | 20:14:16 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | shlevy: (thumbs up on the comment would be helpful if you agree with the summary, to confirm) | 20:14:59 |
|  squalus 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 |
