| 5 Nov 2021 |
 Irenes | I admit I'm not familiar with that person so I can't comment on the specifics | 01:47:46 |
 jonringer | English was a second language for him, and he didn't understand that "their" could refer to a single individual | 01:48:27 |
| Irenes | the system the RFC is attempting to create is, I think, actually far more generous to people who break the rules than what its critics are calling for | 01:48:57 |
| Irenes | I'm really confused by the reaction that people are afraid they might break the rules accidentally, so they want the rules to be stricter | 01:49:31 |
| Irenes | which seems to be a common theme, I don't think it's just you | 01:49:41 |
| Irenes | I mean | 01:49:42 |
| Irenes | I get that it's really about trust | 01:49:45 |
 tomberek | (sorry, i had some other things to attend to). Thanks Irenes , i'm reading through it. | 01:49:47 |
| Irenes | and that formal, precise rules are better for situations where there is no trust between the people who enforce them and the community they claim to serve | 01:50:11 |
| Irenes | but this RFC isn't trying to be a no-trust solution, it will only work if the team that gets appointed manages to build that trust | 01:50:36 |
| jonringer | There has been little reason for me to trust the fairness or objectiveness of much of this community. | 01:50:43 |
| Irenes | I don't think a no-trust solution would be right for Nix | 01:50:49 |
| Irenes | that's completely fair. people do differ, dramatically. | 01:51:01 |
| Irenes | there are valid reasons to assume that the community team might not see your side of things. | 01:51:18 |
| jonringer | "We want people to be equal", but some people are "more equal". And we should conform to perception of the world. For we are bigots, and don't know better. | 01:51:33 |
| jonringer | * "We want people to be equal", but some people are "more equal". And we should conform to their perception of the world. For we are bigots, and don't know better. | 01:51:45 |
| Irenes | nobody is being accused of being a bigot | 01:51:49 |
| Irenes | I can only assume that that's coming from preconceptions you have about the type of person who would write something like this | 01:52:49 |
| Irenes | which is fine and all | 01:52:53 |
| Irenes | but I ask you to look at what's actually happening, at what we're actually saying | 01:53:07 |
| Irenes | and not judge us by caricatures you may be familiar with from elsewhere, of what people who care about this stuff are like | 01:53:31 |
| jonringer | I used to know what is happening in nixpkgs, when I could review PRs, update packages, and fix builds | 01:53:41 |
| Irenes | all vital stuff without which nixpkgs could not exist | 01:54:52 |
| jonringer | but now I'm just on a soap box. In matrix. Shouting in the void. Emotionally and mentally drained at trying to appease a subset of the nix community which feels that everyone else should be like them. To do as they do. To speak as they speak. To think as they think. | 01:54:54 |
| Irenes | for the record, I absolutely do appreciate you taking the time to say this | 01:55:42 |
| Irenes | I hope that we're able to win your trust, although I understand you to be saying that that is likely impossible | 01:56:37 |
| jonringer | Trust isn't won. It's earned, must like respect. And my trust was burned down long ago with how little tolerance was shown sandro | 01:57:23 |
| Irenes | I think it's unfortunate that that situation happened in such a public fashion | 01:58:28 |
| Irenes | it made it into a spectacle | 01:59:01 |
| jonringer | Incidents like https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120729#discussion_r621617554 and the following discussions like https://discourse.nixos.org/t/github-block-evasion-is-not-acceptable/12763, paint a picture where Nix takes a back seat. And that any type of compassion or good faith should be replaced by appeasement. | 01:59:12 |
