| 5 Nov 2021 |
 tomberek | I'm not asking if you can make an opposing argument. But to identify what you think people would think is the "baggage". (it has a negative connotation, sure) | 01:20:12 |
 Irenes | if the goal is to test my understanding of you, I fail | 01:20:15 |
| Irenes | and I know that and acknowledge it | 01:20:21 |
| Irenes | okay. the statement of values? the description of team procedures? the mentions of bigotry and fascism? the hundreds of comments people left on the GitHub thread? | 01:21:03 |
| Irenes | I mean I'm listing off every section of the document, because I guarantee you there is somebody who objects to any given section | 01:21:31 |
| tomberek | Okay, let's pick one and elaborate. Statement of values is a good place to start. For that subsection, what do you think there is general agreement on, and what is contentious? | 01:24:31 |
| Irenes | I've seen disagreement on whether the section should exist | 01:32:21 |
| Irenes | and on whether it should have novel wording vs. just being the Contributor Covenant or something | 01:32:32 |
| Irenes | and on whether the wording should actually say anything or be vacuous | 01:32:49 |
| Irenes | I do personally believe, although it's hard to be sure, that most people who read it liked it | 01:33:21 |
| Irenes | and didn't comment because there was nothing to change | 01:33:30 |
| Irenes | I sure hope we have some way to assess that seriously in this process | 01:33:47 |
| Irenes | I remember you giving feedback on the individual values that was basically removing every word you didn't see the purpose of, and my understanding of your likely motivation was that you wanted to remove things you don't understand because you see each word you don't understand as dangerous | 01:34:41 |
| Irenes | but again | 01:34:41 |
| Irenes | this was speculation | 01:34:43 |
| Irenes | I wasn't really thrilled that you were proposing to remove things rather than asking why they were there, but I was and am happy to continue discussing it because it's important to talk these things through | 01:35:11 |
| Irenes | you asked me for honesty | 01:35:42 |
| Irenes | so that is my honest assessment | 01:35:47 |
| Irenes | please note that that is a very generous assumption about your motivations there | 01:36:48 |
| Irenes | but I like to assume the best | 01:37:03 |
 jonringer | In reply to @irenes:matrix.org
I remember you giving feedback on the individual values that was basically removing every word you didn't see the purpose of, and my understanding of your likely motivation was that you wanted to remove things you don't understand because you see each word you don't understand as dangerous I think a lot of people have an understanding of what is being proposed. Just a lot of people don't agree with it | 01:38:07 |
| Irenes | well, it would be great if they'd say that | 01:38:18 |
| Irenes | so we could talk about it | 01:38:29 |
| jonringer | It's been locked for a few days | 01:38:35 |
| Irenes | yeah I am distressed by that | 01:38:52 |
| jonringer | more like a week | 01:38:53 |
| Irenes | I hope it either gets unlocked or things get moved to Discourse in the very near future | 01:39:15 |
| Irenes | I don't have the power to do either of those things directly | 01:40:10 |
| jonringer | My concern is that the language used (e.g. "model and enforce social norms") expresses a world where the moderation team is focused more on projecting a culture onto an existing community; rather ensure the community has is free of disruptive behavior. | 01:41:34 |
| Irenes | yes, those are different goals | 01:41:46 |
