| 2 May 2024 |
 edef | i feel like i understand where shlevy is coming from but i'm not sure how to accommodate his concerns | 19:44:59 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | if you are referring to the thread I commented on, I do not think it can be accommodated without violating the spirit of the document - it is a fundamental mismatch in thinking about harms | 19:47:01 |
| edef | mm, okay | 19:47:18 |
 danielle | Constructive collaboration involves assuming the injured party was genuinely hurt, and assuming good intent on both sides means you apologize and avoid doing the same thing (knowingly hurting someone) | 19:48:40 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is an issue I run into very frequently when discussing conduct discussions; a lot of people, especially from "apolitical" tech background, have an interpretation of "misconduct" that centers entirely around intent and understanding... where a complaint is only deemed valid if the person being complained about fully understands and agrees with the accusation. this is a frequent source of persistent harassment of marginalized folks, because this is where the whole marginalized vs. privilege perspective comes into play. so if you want effective moderation, you just cannot have "the person understands and agrees with it being wrong" as a prerequisite | 19:49:26 |
| edef | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
Constructive collaboration involves assuming the injured party was genuinely hurt, and assuming good intent on both sides means you apologize and avoid doing the same thing (knowingly hurting someone) what i understand shlevy's worry as, is that people might weaponise feigned injury to steer conversations or coerce others | 19:49:29 |
| danielle | That would be disruptive behavior | 19:49:38 |
| danielle | and is already not in the spirit of the document | 19:49:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
what i understand shlevy's worry as, is that people might weaponise feigned injury to steer conversations or coerce others (I mentioned resolution by a moderator for this reason) | 19:49:55 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
what i understand shlevy's worry as, is that people might weaponise feigned injury to steer conversations or coerce others * (I mentioned resolution by a moderator for this reason, but it did not seem to assauge the concerns) | 19:50:04 |
 infinisil | I'll step away for a bit, but let's try to make https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/144 work, you can also send PRs against my branch with suggestions. After that we should be Zulip-unblocked | 19:50:14 |
| danielle | i left comments on Valentin's suggestions, i'm a mix of soft +1s and hard "do not reword this" | 19:50:57 |
| edef | i'll also step away for a bit, since i feel i've been a bit too engaged and would like to make some space instead | 19:51:21 |
| danielle | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I'll step away for a bit, but let's try to make https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/144 work, you can also send PRs against my branch with suggestions. After that we should be Zulip-unblocked fwiw the only things there are minor rewordings rather than things that change actual meaning, so I think it can land relatively easily. | 19:56:33 |
| 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 |
