| 7 Nov 2021 |
 Irenes | tomberek: I hope that helps. | 12:25:50 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | (I do actually mentally quantify things like impact of conflict etc. as well, but it involves too many 'fuzzy factors' for me to express a quantitative limit upfront) | 12:26:31 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * (I do actually mentally quantify things like impact of conflict etc. as well, but it involves too many 'fuzzy factors' for me to be able to express a quantitative limit upfront) | 12:26:38 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (but I'm not sure it's productive to dive too deep into the weird way my brain works on these sorts of things :p) | 12:27:34 |
 tomberek | I’ll take “good-faith” off the table for a moment. At what point of bad-faith discussion spreading all over the community would you reconsider. | 12:27:37 |
| Irenes | who's that question for? | 12:27:52 |
| tomberek | Joepie. | 12:28:10 |
| tomberek | Or anyone. | 12:28:23 |
| Irenes | if it's spreading beyond the existing moderation team's ability to control it, I'd assess whether it's realistic to wait it out, and failing that, I would take it as an indicator that things have decayed to the point that the goals of the RFC wouldn't be achievable anyway. | 12:29:36 |
| tomberek | I’m getting a sense of “at all costs” and I’m trying to understand how much of the community is considered an acceptable sacrifice. | 12:29:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (I'll need a moment to formulate a clear answer, one sec) | 12:29:44 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's not 'at all costs', that much I can answer right away | 12:29:55 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * it's not 'at all costs' for me, that much I can answer right away | 12:30:03 |
 Ellie | I think this is related to the "these problems are better solved (perhaps painfully) at the moment, rather than waiting until it's totally unavoidable or has cause irreparable harm" conversation | 12:30:26 |
| Irenes | just to state the conclusion that I hope is obvious, in case it isn't: if I conclude that the goals of the RFC are unattainable, of course, at that point I would withdraw it. no point causing further pain. | 12:31:08 |
| tomberek | My point is that I think your goals are achievable, but at far lower cost via other means. | 12:32:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
I’ll take “good-faith” off the table for a moment. At what point of bad-faith discussion spreading all over the community would you reconsider. my attempt at an answer: at the point where bad-faith discussion has become so unmanageable that the situation is not salvageable. some hypothetical cases of that could be:
- a majority of the regulars lose interest in conflict resolution and choose a 'war' instead (common in off-the-deep-end communities, but unlikely in NixOS)
- existing moderators and shepherds fail to step in if some people deliberately disrupt the discussion, allowing them to provoke others without end
- one of the shepherds or authors 'goes rogue' and starts disrupting the discussion with deliberate bad-faith arguments to push through the proposal
I personally consider all of these unlikely to happen in the NixOS community as it is today, though of course technically possible
| 12:36:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | of those three, 'moderators and shepherds failing to step in' has been my biggest concern, but the shepherd update that was posted yesterday(?) has alleviated that for me for the foreseeable future | 12:37:23 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | another more abstract way to phrase it would be: I would reconsider when the overall trend is people moving away from understanding each other, rather than towards it | 12:43:28 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (which would be the consequence of bad-faith discussion becoming unmanageable since the point there is to drive people apart) | 12:44:05 |
| tomberek | “Disruption” has been used quite often over the last few months. This very RFC can easily be considered one and has clearly driven some people apart. The only thing distinguishing it is that it is in good-faith? | 12:44:51 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | to me, yes. | 12:45:37 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's specifically 'constructed disruption' that I have a problem with, which thankfully seems to be rare in this community | 12:45:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * it's specifically 'constructed disruption' (the bad-faith thing) that I have a problem with, which thankfully seems to be rare in this community | 12:46:35 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I do include "is disruptive, has been asked not to do that, and continues to do it anyway" in that | 12:47:24 |
| Irenes | I mean... I don't think I agree with that characterization | 12:48:13 |
| Irenes | to me, disruption means an intent to divide people | 12:49:02 |
| Irenes | that is not what the RFC is trying to do, and I don't think it's even an accurate description of what's happening | 12:49:23 |
| Irenes | I agree that putting the RFC forward causes harm, in the sense that there are people who have said some pretty intense things that have caused harm, and I anticipated that there would be people doing that, and I don't think that, like... I don't think that moral culpability stops at the person who makes the proximate decision | 12:50:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think tomberek is interpreting 'disruption' as meaning the event, not the action | 12:50:32 |
