!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org

RFC 98 Chat

52 Members
Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/9824 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
5 Nov 2021
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ
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:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆeg. defining it as something like "demonstrates that they are open to change" instead of "commits to following moderator instructions"19:12:05
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆthat leaves some wiggle room to argue that it's not really 'demonstrating' it if you don't actually do what you promise, for those edgecases19:12:36
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆotherwise you get the dreaded rule lawyers :p19:12:46
@danielle:fairydust.spacedanielleyeah19:13:01
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegames
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 "HΓ€rtefall".
19:15:33
@danielle:fairydust.spacedaniellegenerally 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 socially19:16:45
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ piegames: ie. a "moderators have the last word" rule? 19:17:03
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ danielle: yeah that is very much the problem we're running into even now 19:17:27
@danielle:fairydust.spacedanielleyup19:17:32
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆI don't think it's impossible, just hard19:17:41
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegames
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:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆit's one reason I want to hash out the concerns that people have19:18:33
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆidentify on which exact point of communication things are going wrong19:18:43
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegamesThink of it as a call to common sense for the rare cases when the rules fail us.19:18:50
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆand 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 shape19:19:09
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ piegames: ah right, makes sense 19:19:25
@zimbatm:numtide.comJonas Chevalier
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.comJonas Chevalierbut it's difficult19:31:12
@danielle:fairydust.spacedanielle
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:fairydust.spacedanielle *
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:fairydust.spacedanielle(From experience, especially when it comes to ableism and sexism, a lot of that gets played off as the person giving feedback being β€œtoo sensitive”)19:32:41
@zimbatm:numtide.comJonas Chevalier
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.comJonas Chevalierthere is some surface agreement, and some more deeply rooted issue that hasn't been addressed19:33:22
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ
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 β€œtoo 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@asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk joined the room.19:59:35
@irenes:matrix.orgIrenesI don't think negative comments should be dismissed, and I do take them seriously.20:02:13
@irenes:matrix.orgIrenesMy discussion with tomberek last night was about how to understand the level of support the RFC has.20:02:50
@irenes:matrix.orgIrenesI'm on board with the trial period idea.20:02:59
@irenes:matrix.orgIrenesI think there's a lot of stuff we can clarify, the RFC will be stronger for all this discussion.20:03:28

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6