| 5 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | a month is unlikely to be enough; probably also won't need 6 months like in some communities I've cleaned up, but probably something along the lines of 3-4 months | 18:38:51 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I agree that specific examples can help communicate what is meant, yes I mean that the replacement & omission of words, and their related effects depends on the context. | 18:39:13 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I agree that specific examples can help communicate what is meant, yes * I mean that the replacement & omission of words, and their related effects depends on the context (in the document). | 18:39:20 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | yeah 6 months sounds reasonable | 18:39:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | or one release cycle :) | 18:39:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would expect 6 months to definitely be enough | 18:39:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | counting from the actual start of implementation, not acceptance of RFC, ofc :) | 18:40:00 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as there'll likely be a delay in assembling a team | 18:40:14 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | the biggest body of work is actually outside of the RFC | 18:41:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | also, if I recall correctly (been a while since reading the RFC), the nixos foundation ultimately has the power to disband the moderation team anyway, right? if things were to go severely wron | 18:41:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * also, if I recall correctly (been a while since reading the RFC), the nixos foundation ultimately has the power to disband the moderation team anyway, right? if things were to go severely wrong | 18:41:24 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | to establish sane moderation practices, it takes a lot of time | 18:41:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yeah, definitely | 18:41:38 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | technically, anybody can still submit a new RFC to disband the team | 18:42:04 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | we could pre-emptively submit that RFC given how long they take :p | 18:42:44 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I mean, sure, but a bikesheddable mechanism does not make for a very good safeguard :) | 18:43:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | see: US filibusters | 18:43:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think a defined trial period (with some sort of approval mechanism) and an ultimate power invested in the foundation are good safeguards | 18:44:04 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | luckily nobody depends on the outcomes of the NixOS community to live | 18:44:11 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would not be so sure | 18:44:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | keep in mind we have a growing side-industry of NixOS consultancy | 18:44:54 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think we should treat this with the importance that that warrants | 18:45:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * keep in mind we have a growing side-industry of NixOS consultancy (individuals, not corporations) | 18:45:46 |
 problems | i'll definitely discuss the trial period idea with irenes, thank you | 18:49:56 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: okay, so let me try to rephrase my summary of your concern: you are fine with eg. respecting someone's pronouns or otherwise doing your part in adapting to social norms in a community, but your concern is that those norms might be 'overzealously' applied in cases where you failed to follow them through no fault of your own, for example because you were not aware of them or because they are difficult for you personally to adapt to? A word on this: mistakes are happen, we are all human. The more important point is how a person reacts when pointed out. With that in mind, nobody should be in fear of making mistakes. | 18:58:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ah yeah, good point. I think that should be explicitly stated in the RFC, the focus on "whether someone is open to resolution" | 18:59:42 |
 danielle | i think that also needs some kind of "and makes an effort to come to one" | 19:03:00 |
| danielle | At least in the past I've seen issues where someone seems open to change, but then does nothing, and keep up problematic behaviour for a really long period of time | 19:03:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ah right, superficially 'open to' vs. actively 'open to' | 19:04:14 |
| danielle | yeah | 19:04:18 |
