| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I've even repeatedly explicitly mentioned RFC 98 to emphasize that I am talking about the structure that would come to exist under its approval, as opposed to the current structure | 18:25:16 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
now if your issue is that it has a hidden hierarchy in it, that'd certainly be a valid concern to raise and try to address this was the comment | 18:25:39 |
| jonringer | but I guess that was in context to the changes of 98 | 18:25:53 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | yes | 18:25:58 |
 Irenes | I have read through, like, maybe 80% of the scrollback since last night | 20:13:45 |
| Irenes | it got into some dense back and forth that is really hard to follow | 20:13:53 |
| Irenes | I strongly encourage people that if you have feedback that you want to be incorporated into the RFC, a chat room is not an appropriate venue to capture that, because it's all but impossible, even for somebody highly dedicated, to catch up on after the fact | 20:14:25 |
| Irenes | we have Discourse and we should use it | 20:14:31 |
 ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | i agree with irenes that we should be having this discussion on discourse or github, not here. it took me multiple hours to read through all the scrollback... | 23:32:32 |
| ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | that said, i want to reiterate what joepie91 said about rfc98 aiming to be explicitly non-hierarchical. it seems to be something that people are having trouble understanding, so we should look into adding wording in the rfc text regarding that | 23:37:54 |
| ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | the community team is intended to be part of and responsible to the community, specifically to avoid having a team that makes decisions unilaterally and is unaccountable to the community | 23:41:28 |
 tomberek | I'll be blunt. I don't think many people have a problem with the intent to create a team, or that they should be held accountable and have some sort of oversight; there is broad agreement about that narrow point. The problem is all the additional baggage that came with it. Then the disagreement about the baggage turned into questioning and debating every piece of it. | 23:57:50 |
| 5 Nov 2021 |
| Irenes | I mean, I get it, we're trying to do something a bit innovative, based on our experience with this stuff | 01:09:56 |
| Irenes | especially with the focus on leadership development as part of it | 01:10:10 |
| Irenes | I understand why that's surprising to people | 01:10:23 |
| Irenes | we've seen the ways these things can go badly elsewhere, and are trying to do better | 01:11:12 |
| tomberek | One second. Can you identify what you think I meant by "baggage"? | 01:11:17 |
| Irenes | not specifically, no, I can think of a lot of things but I don't want to put words in your mouth | 01:11:33 |
| Irenes | feel free to elaborate | 01:11:39 |
| tomberek | I would like you to try. I'm not trying to catch a mistake or accuse of putting words in my mouth. I want to understand your point of view of the overall situation. | 01:14:51 |
| Irenes | I will try, but I have to tell you, I don't really feel as if I know a lot about you as a person | 01:18:23 |
| Irenes | and that means anything I say is a wild guess | 01:18:30 |
| Irenes | because there are a lot of things that people coming from various perspectives would object to | 01:18:43 |
| tomberek | It's not the objection I'm asking you to identify. | 01:19:04 |
| Irenes | sorry, uh | 01:19:13 |
| Irenes | okay, but this is already why I am already well aware that I cannot read your mind in the way you're asking me to | 01:19:34 |
| Irenes | because to me "baggage" suggest an objection | 01:19:40 |
| Irenes | *suggests | 01:19:44 |
| Irenes | but people are very different and the easiest way for me to know what you mean is for you to tell me | 01:19:57 |
| 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 |
