| 5 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | there is some surface agreement, and some more deeply rooted issue that hasn't been addressed | 19:33:22 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
(From experience, especially when it comes to ableism and sexism, a lot of that gets played off as the person giving feedback being “too sensitive”) whenever I talk about 'determining intent' in community management, it usually relates to this specific failure mode, yeah | 19:34:35 |
|  @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk joined the room. | 19:59:35 |
 Irenes | I don't think negative comments should be dismissed, and I do take them seriously. | 20:02:13 |
| Irenes | My discussion with tomberek last night was about how to understand the level of support the RFC has. | 20:02:50 |
| Irenes | I'm on board with the trial period idea. | 20:02:59 |
| Irenes | I think there's a lot of stuff we can clarify, the RFC will be stronger for all this discussion. | 20:03:28 |
 Domen Kožar | I think one the problems with RFC process is that it encourages too much of waterfall ship-it-and-make-no-mistakes | 21:00:36 |
| Domen Kožar | I wonder what would be a more incremental nature to it | 21:00:45 |
| Domen Kožar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
expressing negative feelings is fine, and plenty of people have been doing so constructively over the past several... has it been months? but the emphasis there is on "constructively" - those expressions do need to come from a fundamentally empathic stance, a realization that one's own concerns are not the only ones that matter and that there is always going to be some weighing of competing interests and concerns. Thanks for allowing the folks to just express their opinion without having a solution, I think that's important too. While we have folks that deeply care and want to improve things, it's also fair to have community members that say "I don't approve this but I'm not willing to invest time". I realize RFC is not the best place, but having one is still important. | 21:03:10 |
| Domen Kožar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
expressing negative feelings is fine, and plenty of people have been doing so constructively over the past several... has it been months? but the emphasis there is on "constructively" - those expressions do need to come from a fundamentally empathic stance, a realization that one's own concerns are not the only ones that matter and that there is always going to be some weighing of competing interests and concerns. * Thanks for allowing the folks to just express their opinion/feelings without having a solution, I think that's important too. While we have folks that deeply care and want to improve things, it's also fair to have community members that say "I don't approve this but I'm not willing to invest time". I realize RFC is not the best place, but having one is still important. | 21:03:28 |
 7c6f434c | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
I think one the problems with RFC process is that it encourages too much of waterfall ship-it-and-make-no-mistakes But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) | 21:07:52 |
| Domen Kožar | (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone wants to interpret it as expressing irony) | 21:08:04 |
| Domen Kožar | * (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone interpreted it as expressing irony) | 21:08:54 |
| Domen Kožar | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) A lot of things are never finished, but that doesn't mean at some point you have to make a snapshot and say "this is the status quo" | 21:10:29 |
| Domen Kožar | In reply to @7c6f434c:nitro.chat
But it also encourages incremental «make the piece so small that we can actually finish discussing it» approach! (Or at least it encouraged this approach in me, when I wrote succesful RFCs) * A lot of projects are never finished, but that doesn't mean at some point can't make a snapshot and say "this is the status quo" | 21:11:02 |
| Domen Kožar | Maybe the missing puzzle is that we can allow PRs against merged RFCS instead of creating new RFCs | 21:11:38 |
| 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 |
| Domen Kožar | 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 |
| Domen Kožar | 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 |
| Domen Kožar | alright, I'll put incremental rfcs todo on my list | 21:18:36 |
| Domen Kožar | 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 |
