| 5 Nov 2021 |
 7c6f434c | I think a few of our RFCs are continuations/improvements to previous ones | 21:12:47 |
| 7c6f434c | Moreover, some RFCs explicitly called for further relevant RFCs to be made later | 21:13:16 |
 @domenkozar:matrix.org | Sure, but we should allow RFCs to change | 21:13:40 |
| 7c6f434c | Yes, extending the process to explicit amendments is a nice idea | 21:13:50 |
| 7c6f434c | Although superseding instead works well enough in many cases | 21:14:34 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | It's really both that we need, sometimes you need a rewrite and sometimes you need incremental changes | 21:15:16 |
| 7c6f434c | I agree that PRs against RFCs could be useful. I just say that RFC process contains enough hooks that we have even seen used so that «process not mentioning amendments» is not really a blocker. Process not encouraging amendment-like workflows (for example, indeed, by saying the same procedure applies to PRs against previous RFCs) might indeed fail to help some good things to be thought of. | 21:17:55 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | alright, I'll put incremental rfcs todo on my list | 21:18:36 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | not sure if I have the time for it anytime soon | 21:18:49 |
| 7c6f434c | I kind of see one issue I am not sure how to handle | 21:19:09 |
| 7c6f434c | How the motivation sections should interact in that model | 21:19:32 |
| 7c6f434c | I would want the motivation for the change to be a part of the PR as in branch in VCS, not just GitHub discussion. But also after merging there should be a unified motivation for the entire thing as it exists thereafter | 21:21:10 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Domen Kožar: I'm really hoping that some people will take advantage of this, even though I probably will regret the 'unfiltered' part later :) | 21:21:12 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | yeah that one might have been too far :D | 21:21:29 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do think it's necessary for this to have any chance of working | 21:21:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | a recurring theme among complaints seems to be "I feel like I would have to walk on eggshells with this proposal" so making it abundantly clear that they don't need to do that here seems.... important :p | 21:22:25 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | Yes, thank you very much for doing this | 21:23:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | of course it's still a matter of whether people trust me with this when they feel that my political views diverge too much from theirs, but I hope I've managed to make the barrier low enough for that | 21:25:07 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * of course it's still a matter of whether people trust me with this when they feel that my political views diverge too much from theirs, but I hope I've managed to make the barrier/risk low enough for that | 21:25:16 |
| 7c6f434c | I interpreted the offer mostly as you being clearly far on political views and offering to work together to see how much of the conflict is more of a need for some safeguards/removal of excessively coded language/explicit writing down some implied things to avoid drift. | 21:33:57 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | 7c6f434c: "clearly far"? that is a typo I think? | 21:35:58 |
| 7c6f434c | My failure at grammar, I guess. Obviously quite far from those having the most issues with the current version of the RFC text. | 21:37:41 |
|  ryantm joined the room. | 23:03:39 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | 
Download image.png | 23:09:06 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I am sorry to derail this chat for something, but I'd like to discuss that GitHub does show me this comment although I appear to have blocked its author. | 23:10:00 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | This is a problem. The person has done nothing that would clearly allow us to ban them from the community. Nevertheless, I do not wish to interact with them at all. | 23:13:52 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * This is a problem. The person has done nothing that would clearly allow us to ban them from the community. Nevertheless, I do not wish to interact with them at all. (This is probably not the post I blocked them for, but it was probably of the same style. In case you are unsure about them, click a few times to find their Twitter. Anyways, that's besides the point) | 23:15:35 |
 danielle | Being deliberately inflammatory is, probably, something that would lead to a conversation and then a potential ban in most good moderation systems | 23:27:44 |
 @hexa:lossy.network | Uh … I'm ignoring the person as well. And the comments on the community and moderation team are their only contribution to the NixOS org this year. Very odd. | 23:28:45 |
| danielle | yeah I have them blocked everywhere for a reason. Mostly stemming from https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#issuecomment-892403988 | 23:30:01 |
