| 5 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
I would like to keep them out of the RFC. They are clearly rare enough that some ad-hoc human judgement based on the situation is the best solution. that does require ensuring that the wording is flexible/vague enough to leave space for it, though | 19:11:14 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | eg. defining it as something like "demonstrates that they are open to change" instead of "commits to following moderator instructions" | 19:12:05 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that leaves some wiggle room to argue that it's not really 'demonstrating' it if you don't actually do what you promise, for those edgecases | 19:12:36 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | otherwise you get the dreaded rule lawyers :p | 19:12:46 |
 danielle | yeah | 19:13:01 |
 piegames | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
that does require ensuring that the wording is flexible/vague enough to leave space for it, though The german language has a beautiful word to punch a hole of exactly the right size in the rules, it's called "Härtefall". | 19:15:33 |
| danielle | generally speaking it needs to be ok to follow the spirit of rules, not the exactness of rules, which is part of where explicit CoCs fall down, but also where I think nix would struggle socially | 19:16:45 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | piegames: ie. a "moderators have the last word" rule? | 19:17:03 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | danielle: yeah that is very much the problem we're running into even now | 19:17:27 |
| danielle | yup | 19:17:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I don't think it's impossible, just hard | 19:17:41 |
| piegames | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
danielle: yeah that is very much the problem we're running into even now Kind of, yes. The difference is that there needs to be a general consensus of "the rules don't match this use case well", so the moderators cannot just overrule anything they want. | 19:18:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's one reason I want to hash out the concerns that people have | 19:18:33 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | identify on which exact point of communication things are going wrong | 19:18:43 |
| piegames | Think of it as a call to common sense for the rare cases when the rules fail us. | 19:18:50 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | and I have my suspicions based on the cultural background of the community, but I also don't want to overlook cases that don't fit into that shape | 19:19:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | piegames: ah right, makes sense | 19:19:25 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
I've seen a lot of cases, especially in corporate and corporate oss settings where someone is asked to change their behaviour (e.g when being overly pedantic in reviews for a particular person, or obstructionist), where a lot of the language will change to be far more passively aggressive generally when that happens, the issue is also on the feedback side. It's important to frame things in terms of effects that people have on others, instead of a moral one. | 19:30:39 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | but it's difficult | 19:31:12 |
| danielle | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
generally when that happens, the issue is also on the feedback side. It's important to frame things in terms of effects that people have on others, instead of a moral one. I’m v familiar with this, and regrettably that is not usually enough | 19:31:19 |
| danielle | * In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
generally when that happens, the issue is also on the feedback side. It's important to frame things in terms of effects that people have on others, instead of a moral one. I’m v familiar with this, and regrettably that is not always enough | 19:32:06 |
| danielle | (From experience, especially when it comes to ableism and sexism, a lot of that gets played off as the person giving feedback being “too sensitive”) | 19:32:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
eg. defining it as something like "demonstrates that they are open to change" instead of "commits to following moderator instructions" same with this, sometimes it's also because the feedback fails to connect with the person | 19:32:41 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | there is some surface agreement, and some more deeply rooted issue that hasn't been addressed | 19:33:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @danielle:fairydust.space
(From experience, especially when it comes to ableism and sexism, a lot of that gets played off as the person giving feedback being “too sensitive”) whenever I talk about 'determining intent' in community management, it usually relates to this specific failure mode, yeah | 19:34:35 |
|  @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk joined the room. | 19:59:35 |
 Irenes | I don't think negative comments should be dismissed, and I do take them seriously. | 20:02:13 |
| Irenes | My discussion with tomberek last night was about how to understand the level of support the RFC has. | 20:02:50 |
| Irenes | I'm on board with the trial period idea. | 20:02:59 |
| Irenes | I think there's a lot of stuff we can clarify, the RFC will be stronger for all this discussion. | 20:03:28 |
