| 5 Nov 2021 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | It would be better with specific examples | 18:36:26 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I agree that specific examples can help communicate what is meant, yes | 18:36:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | but we should also be careful that it doesn't become (or look like) an exhaustive list | 18:37:03 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Another way to defuse some of the trust issues would be to add a failsafe mechanism, or just try the moderation team for X months | 18:37:21 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Once we have a concrete implementation, it will help people see that this can work | 18:37:49 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | with my 'experienced community manager' hat on I would suggest setting X fairly high | 18:37:59 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it usually takes some time for people to adjust to this kind of community management model, and to learn to understand each other's communication patterns around conflict | 18:38:22 |
| 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 |
