| 7 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | right, that is why I'm having trouble parsing the question | 11:10:38 |
 @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | probably they mean too strict norms | 11:10:53 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | or maybe | 11:10:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | all communities operate like this, all communities have some set of social norms, implicit or explicit, loose or strict norms, but some set that people need to adjust to over time to have the community function | 11:11:12 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | like, that is just very fundamentally how social interaction works | 11:11:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and the concern in jonringer's case specifically seemed to be "unreasonable social norms and/or not enough space/time to adjust to the norms" | 11:12:08 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | which is a completely valid concern | 11:12:19 |
 tomberek | Are there proposed norms that this feedback (or any other feedback) caused to be reconsidered? | 11:13:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this specific feedback from jonringer has resulted in an understanding that the process of adhering to social norms needs to be made more clear; ie. making it clear that there should always be room for people to adjust as long as they make a genuine effort (see earlier discussion for the nitty-gritty about how to phrase this) | 11:15:23 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | discussion about clarifying certain terms and what is meant with them, was already ongoing and ties into this | 11:15:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | whether this is translating into an RFC change yet is something I cannot answer, I'm not the author :p | 11:16:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do want to note that the feedback from jonringer didn't so much bring up a previously unconsidered concern (as everybody seems to philosophically already agree that there should be room for adjustment), but rather highlighted that the RFC currently does not communicate well enough that this factor is taken into consideration | 11:17:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | this is also why I commented in the thread that the issues seem to be mostly around communication and not so much about philosophical disagreements | 11:18:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that doesn't mean those issues aren't important, but it does mean that work needs to be done to figure out exactly where and why the miscommunication is happening | 11:18:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (rather than focusing entirely on "these are oppressive norms" for example) | 11:19:10 |
| tomberek | I agree that miscommunication is happening, I'm still at a loss to see how it will not continue. | 11:20:31 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that seems like a strange stance to take. why do you feel it will continue? | 11:21:38 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | I believe there were also concerns on how this affects the balance of power and how it should, I have no idea how this related to how nixos works in general are there elections, how is eligible to vote etc. | 11:21:55 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | * I believe there were also concerns on how this affects the balance of power and how it should, I have no idea how this related to how nixos works in general are there elections, who is eligible to vote etc. | 11:22:32 |
| tomberek | The past three months, the existing history of the RFC gives me good reason to think that it will. That that RFC and the ensuing discussion has led to several bans, and more discussions about additional ones. That feedback seems to take three months to be heard and the price of the disruption and pain caused seems to be ignored. If the only constructive feedback accepted is that people need to be given time to adjust..... well, that doesn't change the situation enough to fix the problem of miscommunication. | 11:25:36 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | at the time the RFC was created, it was already known that it would take a long time to sort this all out, because this topic always does | 11:26:28 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it was deliberately not rushed and considered carefully for that reason | 11:26:41 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and especially in the past several days, there have been some significant steps towards a better shared understanding among community members | 11:27:05 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | By process, I think maybe it is also better to have norms separately handled from the methods of enforcing the norms, but that might or might not be nitpicking, I am not sure if this is why rfc-114 was done or not | 11:27:08 |
| @jkarlson:kapsi.fi | (I guess it was also about the language) | 11:27:26 |
 Ellie | joepie91 🏳️🌈: weren't you supposed to be taking a holiday from the internet today? | 11:27:48 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Emil Karlson: while I don't have the time today to go into detail about this, I am opposed to treating norms and process separately for the reasons that a) the two are quite closely intertwined and can't really be considered separately, and b) you will very likely end up with a toothless CoC as the process gets stuck in bikeshed land, and then you get what the Scala community is experiencing now | 11:28:19 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | Ellie: yeup | 11:28:37 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I will be disappearing in a couple of minutes :) | 11:28:46 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | tomberek: anyway, rest assured that everyone involved in the process for RFC 98 is painfully aware of the conflict that it is causing, and I think all of us would have preferred for that not to happen. but the unfortunate reality is that this sort of thing will have to come to a head sooner or later, and it's better to do so at a time when the community isn't already in crisis and there is still room to approach the topic carefully and at a reasonable pace | 11:30:42 |
