| 2 May 2024 |
 infinisil | I'm gonna link to the PR from https://discourse.nixos.org/t/discussions-on-zulip-for-governance-discussions/44694, I think it's fair to let everybody know what we're stuck with | 19:56:59 |
 danielle | (shlevy aside, but that's somewhat unworkable as we've discussed above) | 19:57:16 |
| infinisil | * I'm gonna link to the PR from https://discourse.nixos.org/t/discussions-on-zulip-for-governance-discussions/44694, I think it's fair to let everybody know what we're stuck with (unless there's good arguments against doing this?) | 19:57:17 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | infinisil: there is a significant risk of people who are not involved in the project leaving 'reviews' | 19:59:17 |
 7c6f434c | 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? | 19:59:19 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: is that not just a ban with extra steps? | 19:59:47 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (as in, the "does not apologise" case) | 20:00:14 |
| danielle | I'm not signing up for "let someone join, knowing they don't intend to play by the same rules, just for them to leave after hurting someone" | 20:00:46 |
 lovesegfault | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
I'm not signing up for "let someone join, knowing they don't intend to play by the same rules, just for them to leave after hurting someone" I'm with you, but how would one "know they don't intend to play by the same rules"? Module the trivial case of "they literally said they won't play by the rules" | 20:02:32 |
| danielle | In reply to @lovesegfault:matrix.org
I'm with you, but how would one "know they don't intend to play by the same rules"? Module the trivial case of "they literally said they won't play by the rules" if they join silently thinking they're not going to play by the same rules, it should be a ban not an amicable leaving. | 20:03:00 |
| lovesegfault | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
if they join silently thinking they're not going to play by the same rules, it should be a ban not an amicable leaving. I'm not following, maybe I'm missing context? | 20:03:40 |
|  shlevy joined the room. | 20:03:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | lovesegfault: this was in response to "if they disagree with a moderation decision they can just leave", and my commenting that that's just a ban with extra steps, AIUI | 20:04:12 |
| lovesegfault | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
lovesegfault: this was in response to "if they disagree with a moderation decision they can just leave", and my commenting that that's just a ban with extra steps, AIUI Ahhh, got it | 20:04:41 |
| danielle | We're already getting comments from non contributors | 20:05:23 |
| lovesegfault | I mean, there should be an appeals process to moderation decisions, but the community should design that during the constituent assembly IMO | 20:05:31 |
| 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 |
