| 3 Nov 2021 |
 GallantChef | * That encourages me to take his side over anyone who gets "offended" by his shortness | 19:37:35 |
| GallantChef | If his focus is on work, then his focus is in the right place | 19:37:45 |
| GallantChef | If someone wants to harbour/foster enmity instead of focusing on the task at hand, well, I think they fell short of what I would consider good values | 19:38:16 |
| GallantChef | I think this is actually extremely apropos of the CoC RFC | 19:38:50 |
| GallantChef | We want to discourage drama, and encourage working together | 19:39:06 |
 jonringer | Anyway, didn't intend to bring that baggage back up. But similar individuals are involved, and a similar outcry for enacting a safe space was called for. It's my personal opinion that RFC#98 was created in response to it. | 19:39:20 |
| GallantChef | Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing | 19:39:46 |
| GallantChef | But a CoC for a CoC's sake that touches enough of the points that are desired may be a good middle way | 19:40:08 |
 ryblade | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
We want to discourage drama, and encourage working together and this is precisely why we can't let moderation devolve into hunting down "offensive" people, that is a bloodsport that never, ever ends. just look at twitter, it's a warzone out there! | 19:40:13 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing That's not strictly true. I probably wouldn't notice 98 if all I did was issues and PRs | 19:40:25 |
| GallantChef | I suppose I'm less concerned about 98 initself rather than the possible (inevitable) consequences of enacting such a thing | 19:41:07 |
| GallantChef | But that leads to "extrapolation" as you called it | 19:41:13 |
| GallantChef | But I suspect you share my concern | 19:41:18 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing * That's not strictly true. I probably wouldn't notice 98 being ratified if all I did was issues and PRs. | 19:41:23 |
| GallantChef | * Although I suspect you share my concern | 19:41:40 |
| jonringer | I summarized my concern: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-is-not-leadership/15750/18? | 19:42:06 |
| ryblade | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
But a CoC for a CoC's sake that touches enough of the points that are desired may be a good middle way that kind of reminds me of stallman's reasons for creating the GPL, even though he fundamentally disagrees with the concept of software licenses entirely. in a world where licenses are a reality, having one you can agree with is better than having none at all. i suppose the same can be said about CoCs. | 19:42:43 |
| GallantChef | That's a decent perspective | 19:43:30 |
| GallantChef | I don't typically see eye to eye with rms, but I definitely agree with that | 19:43:51 |
| ryblade | same | 19:44:16 |
| GallantChef | So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
| 19:46:13 |
| GallantChef | * So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
| 19:46:58 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
The first 2 I'll do in the moderation RFC, the last two will be part of the CoC RFC. The 3rd should be satisfied by the CoC as well | 19:47:46 |
| ryblade | ... and perhaps a brief mention on how a user can take their own action to curate their environment (blocking, etc.)? perhaps worded in a way that sounds more... i dunno... "empowering", rather than dismissive. if that makes sense. | 19:48:01 |
| GallantChef | That's brilliant, actually | 19:48:13 |
| GallantChef | Here in the Nix community, we encourage contributors to be empowered and take control of their environment thru such and such | 19:48:40 |
| GallantChef | [demonstrative/pronoun] likes that sort of rhetoric | 19:48:56 |
| ryblade | though perhaps if necessary, a clear delineation of where your responsibilities end and the moderators' responsibilities begin might also help. this sort of thing could be easily represented in a table. | 19:50:12 |
| GallantChef | Second, tables are good | 19:50:23 |
| GallantChef | Basically it could read as "when to contact a moderator" | 19:50:39 |
