| 2 May 2024 |
 infinisil | We just need to agree to use invite links, and to send them to the email the user specified | 17:30:45 |
 edef | we do lose the binding of invite link to user we intended to invite | 17:31:05 |
| edef | and we have to be mindful that we don't send out the same link twice | 17:31:17 |
| infinisil | Hmm yeah actually no that's a terrible idea | 17:31:45 |
| edef | rock, meet hard place | 17:32:03 |
| infinisil | Hold on, do invite links work for multiple users?? | 17:32:18 |
| infinisil | I'll try it out.. | 17:32:45 |
| edef | that would really kill user binding | 17:33:39 |
| infinisil | It sure does! | 17:35:01 |
 lovesegfault | Is the Zulip up and running? | 17:35:08 |
| infinisil | Alright that's a no-go 🙃 | 17:35:08 |
| edef | any amnesty-covered users would have to be invited by an actually user-binding process, but we're emailing with them already, and have space to give them the message upfront | 17:35:10 |
| edef | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Alright that's a no-go 🙃 ack, fair | 17:35:21 |
| edef | if anyone has proposals for how we make it abundantly clear that the rules of engagement for this venue are Very Specific and you actually have to read them? | 17:35:52 |
| edef | * if anyone has proposals for how we make it abundantly clear that the rules of engagement for this venue are Very Specific and you actually have to read them, speak now | 17:35:57 |
| infinisil | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
We could have a stream for the CoC and one for deescalation, only admins have write access, everybody's subscribed by default This? | 17:36:12 |
| edef | mm, the best shot i have left is "really really pin a message in a way you can't avoid" | 17:36:27 |
| edef | maybe pin it to every channel | 17:36:38 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | infinisil: complaint about broken code of conduct link in the discourse signup thread | 17:37:50 |
| edef | well, at least a sign people are reading it :p | 17:38:06 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (it is indeed broken but their suggestion of where it is meant to point, is wrong) | 17:38:07 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @edef1c:matrix.org
if anyone has proposals for how we make it abundantly clear that the rules of engagement for this venue are Very Specific and you actually have to read them, speak now I mean, the only thing I can think of is "get explicit agreement by e-mail before creating their account for them" but this does introduce an extra roundtrip | 17:39:01 |
| infinisil | The link will be valid once https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/144 is merged :) Ron told me he's pinged the foundation channel, just waiting for upvotes | 17:39:26 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it is not mentioned in the public foundation room fwiw | 17:40:01 |
| edef | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I mean, the only thing I can think of is "get explicit agreement by e-mail before creating their account for them" but this does introduce an extra roundtrip i guess we can send a ~manual email alongside the invitation | 17:40:18 |
| edef | "READ THIS FIRST: Rules of Engagement" | 17:40:28 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is possible | 17:40:35 |
| edef | but feels prone to getting lost in people's email streams | 17:40:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yeah that was my concern with that | 17:40:47 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | an explicit acknowledgment would be very helpful | 17:40:54 |
