| 5 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | but it's difficult | 19:31:12 |
 danielle | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
generally when that happens, the issue is also on the feedback side. It's important to frame things in terms of effects that people have on others, instead of a moral one. I’m v familiar with this, and regrettably that is not usually enough | 19:31:19 |
| danielle | * In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
generally when that happens, the issue is also on the feedback side. It's important to frame things in terms of effects that people have on others, instead of a moral one. I’m v familiar with this, and regrettably that is not always enough | 19:32:06 |
| danielle | (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”) | 19:32:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
eg. defining it as something like "demonstrates that they are open to change" instead of "commits to following moderator instructions" same with this, sometimes it's also because the feedback fails to connect with the person | 19:32:41 |
| @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 |
 @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 | 21:00:36 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | I wonder what would be a more incremental nature to it | 21:00:45 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | 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 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | 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 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone wants to interpret it as expressing irony) | 21:08:04 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | * (my thanks refers to joepie91 🏳️🌈's comment on the RFC, in case someone interpreted it as expressing irony) | 21:08:54 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | 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 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | 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 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | 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 |
| @domenkozar:matrix.org | Sure, but we should allow RFCs to change | 21:13:40 |
