 | RFC 98 Chat | 45 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 21 Servers |
| RFC 98 Chat | 45 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 21 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Nov 2021 | ||
 problems | ah, okay. we're gonna clarify this in the rfc soon but i can try to explain briefly some of the reasoning here | 17:21:55 |
| problems | pardon if this is poorly expressed or anything, i'm currently sitting in a park and i haven't put my brain together completely for today | 17:23:01 |
 jonringer | joepie91 🏳️🌈: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-is-not-leadership/15750/18 states my position. | 17:23:19 |
| jonringer | joepie91 🏳️🌈: values of a community shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be something we all agree with. | 17:24:20 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @kity:kity.wtfNo pressure. It appears that the RFC is currently getting a major overhaul internally? In that case, may I suggest to close the current RFC and open a new one when it's done. Might help with the discussion(s). | 17:25:08 |
| jonringer | the language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give a single group preference | 17:25:10 |
| jonringer | * the language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give any group preference | 17:25:43 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: okay, so trying to fit this into the earlier list of 'logical components': would it be accurate to say that you are not entirely opposed to "being told how you should act, say, or think" (as your earlier message implied), but rather you are opposed to being told that outside of a specific set of unacceptable behaviours? | 17:26:57 |
| jonringer | I think that's pretty accurate. If I'm disruptive, let me know. But focus on my behavior, not me as a person. I can change behaviors, but I don't want to change who I am. | 17:29:07 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: okay, then I think I better understand where you are coming from now :) | 17:29:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | thanks | 17:29:40 |
| * joepie91 🏳️🌈 percolates thoughts for a bit | 17:29:54 | |
| problems | fundamentally there are two main reasons we wanted to avoid a traditional hierarchical moderation structure:
right now, if graham were to quit or disappear or such, we'd be pretty much without someone that has the domain knowledge to do his job. with a traditional hierarchical structure, we could ask that moderators appoint someone else before they leave, but it's a lot of domain knowledge to convey on a short timescale (not just how the tools work, but the details of community structure & dynamics, conflict resolution, mediation, how to identify and address problematic behaviors, etc) by focusing on empowering the community as a whole and constantly building these leadership skills in everyone, as well as encouraging them to join the community team, we avoid both of these issues | 17:32:15 |
| jonringer | My issue with terms like "social norms" is that encompasses a lot of about the background of an individual, and not everyone may want to fit into the mold they will be forced into. We are (at least I think) a community centered around a technology. Not instilling cultural values. | 17:32:18 |
| problems | something i forgot to say: with the traditional approach i mentioned, we could ofc find more people with those skills already, but they're not that common so i don't consider it sustainable. we could bring in experienced moderators from other places, but they would be out of touch with the nixos community | 17:36:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: okay, so after thinking about it for a bit, I have a further question: could you think of a hypothetical example of the kind of 'norms demand' you're concerned about? something that would make you uncomfortable if it were asked of you because it would mean 'compromising your identity', and that you feel could plausibly be asked by an RFC-98-style community team. | 17:38:08 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (if you're not comfortable mentioning such an example in public here, DM would also be fine) | 17:38:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (also, to be clear, I don't intend to be judgmental here, I'm just trying to better understand how you are interpreting the proposal, because I suspect there's a language barrier of sorts involved here) | 17:44:55 |
| jonringer | Personally, I still have a lot of cognitive dissonance around the usage of "they" to mean a single individual. It goes against what I learned in school (third person plural pronoun), and feels like my understanding of my own language needs to be re-defined. I'm still fine in referring to someone as they, it just causes me some cognitive dissonance (or "emotial labor" I think is the term) each time as I'm having to unlearn "they" and relearn someone else's "they". This is probably a bad example, as language constructs aren't consistent even within the same language or culture groups. But you wanted an example, and for some reason I chose this one. Then again, I'm probably just a bigot. So I don't understand. | 17:45:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: no, I think that example is fine, actually | 17:45:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: so if I understand correctly, it's not so much the "being expected to use they" that's your concern here, but rather a 'fear of consequences' for not getting it perfectly right or forgetting to do it? | 17:47:04 |
| jonringer | Also, another user was banned over this very issue as well. their statement and punishment | 17:47:11 |
| jonringer | * Also, another user was banned over this very issue as well. their statement and punishment | 17:47:26 |
| jonringer | Both. The time I forget to use the other usage, will be final eggshell. and I'll be genesis 2.0 | 17:48:03 |
| jonringer | Also, this is just one example. The language 98 opens the door to many similar instances. | 17:48:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: hold on, I want to get this specific example a bit clearer first :p | 17:49:03 |
| jonringer | I have a bit more context in this post. https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/114#discussion_r743828914 | 17:49:40 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: you say that it's "both" that concern you, but in your initial message you said "I'm still fine in referring to someone as they" - I'm not sure how to reconcile those two things | 17:49:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (I do have some comments on the genesis ban, but I'll save those for later, I want to understand your concern first) | 17:50:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * (I do have some comments on the genesis ban, but I'll save those for later, I want to accurately understand your concern first) | 17:50:36 |