| 3 Nov 2021 |
|  @grahamc:nixos.org set the history visibility to "world_readable". | 18:20:58 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org changed the room name to "" from "". | 18:20:58 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org invited  @infinisil:matrix.org. | 18:21:05 |
| @grahamc:nixos.org invited  NixOS Moderation Bot. | 18:21:12 |
| NixOS Moderation Bot joined the room. | 18:21:13 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org joined the room. | 18:21:16 |
| @grahamc:nixos.orgchanged room power levels. | 18:21:18 |
| @grahamc:nixos.orgchanged room power levels. | 18:21:22 |
|  @server_stats:nordgedanken.dev joined the room. | 18:21:35 |
|  @lourkeur:nixos.dev joined the room. | 18:21:44 |
|  ma27 joined the room. | 18:22:08 |
|  @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life joined the room. | 18:22:18 |
|  @abathur:matrix.org joined the room. | 18:22:33 |
|  Matrix Traveler (bot) joined the room. | 18:22:57 |
|  @jonringer:matrix.org joined the room. | 18:23:22 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org set the room topic to "Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98". | 18:24:50 |
|  @hexa:lossy.network joined the room. | 18:26:03 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I guess I'll start it off, I agree with the motivation section, the value section, and some of the transparency in RFC98, however, I think the language of RFC 98 (especially terms like "social norms", "fascism", and "bigotry") Have no place in a foundational "constitution" for a community. It provides a "open for interpretation" to the law, and can be leveraged as, "I don't like their behavior".
I would like to see a CoC similar to rust's CoC which keeps the focus on technology, and makes it clear that malicious behavior is not tolerated. https://www.rust-lang.org/policies/code-of-conduct | 18:27:09 |
| @infinisil:matrix.org | To provide a backlink to the previous discussion in #offtopic:nixos.org: https://matrix.to/#/!sgkZKRutwatDMkYBHU:nixos.org/$zpWgO1tKLYI5Hs-t1h_xH_r06IbH4-0riRM8zm9lbNE?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=nixos.dev | 18:27:51 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Also, not sure when we will open up the RFC back to RFC, as that would probably the most appropriate setting, as this discussion has no official bearing when the committee will meet to review RFCs | 18:29:55 |
