| 5 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Jonas Chevalier: I believe so too | 18:31:10 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | For example replacing many of the instances of "ideology" | 18:31:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | or well, less 'changing the wording' and more 'adding wording', I think | 18:31:38 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * For example replacing many of the instances of "ideology". (it gives me an impression that there is a hidden agenda) | 18:32:10 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | as it needs to be broadly made clear, regardless of what the problematic behaviour is or what motivates it, that there should always be room for errors and adjustment | 18:32:27 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Just be more precise. If you say "values" then it's clear that it refers to the value statements. | 18:32:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Some words like that have a lot of baggage and we're seeing the projections that people do. | 18:33:33 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | Unlike Irenes, I don't think that the negative comments should be dismissed. They should be taken very seriously and addressed. | 18:34:14 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | As in: clarify | 18:34:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | however strange this may sound, there is unfortunately also 'baggage' of sorts to deliberately avoiding these words | 18:34:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | though the reason for that is a very complex and nuanced discussion that I'm not sure is useful to have here right now | 18:34:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I'm not disagreeing that there is baggage to using them, to be clear) | 18:35:32 |
| @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 |
