| 5 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I mean, sure, but a bikesheddable mechanism does not make for a very good safeguard :) | 18:43:17 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | see: US filibusters | 18:43:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think a defined trial period (with some sort of approval mechanism) and an ultimate power invested in the foundation are good safeguards | 18:44:04 |
 Jonas Chevalier | luckily nobody depends on the outcomes of the NixOS community to live | 18:44:11 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would not be so sure | 18:44:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | keep in mind we have a growing side-industry of NixOS consultancy | 18:44:54 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think we should treat this with the importance that that warrants | 18:45:22 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * keep in mind we have a growing side-industry of NixOS consultancy (individuals, not corporations) | 18:45:46 |
 ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | i'll definitely discuss the trial period idea with irenes, thank you | 18:49:56 |
 piegames | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: okay, so let me try to rephrase my summary of your concern: you are fine with eg. respecting someone's pronouns or otherwise doing your part in adapting to social norms in a community, but your concern is that those norms might be 'overzealously' applied in cases where you failed to follow them through no fault of your own, for example because you were not aware of them or because they are difficult for you personally to adapt to? A word on this: mistakes are happen, we are all human. The more important point is how a person reacts when pointed out. With that in mind, nobody should be in fear of making mistakes. | 18:58:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ah yeah, good point. I think that should be explicitly stated in the RFC, the focus on "whether someone is open to resolution" | 18:59:42 |
 danielle | i think that also needs some kind of "and makes an effort to come to one" | 19:03:00 |
| danielle | At least in the past I've seen issues where someone seems open to change, but then does nothing, and keep up problematic behaviour for a really long period of time | 19:03:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | ah right, superficially 'open to' vs. actively 'open to' | 19:04:14 |
| danielle | yeah | 19:04:18 |
| piegames | Interesting. Most cases I've seen the person either was obviously hostile in the first place or then doubled down after being pointed out, digging their hole even deeper with no room for any misinterpretations. | 19:05:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that is definitely the most common case IME, but passively appearing to be open to changing but not actually doing so does occur | 19:06:47 |
| danielle | 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 | 19:07:02 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | those are unfortunately also often the really complicated cases without good answers, eg. people whose communication abilities are strongly impaired for mental health reasons | 19:07:21 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | (at least in non-corporate community environments) | 19:07:42 |
| piegames | 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. | 19:08:46 |
| danielle | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
those are unfortunately also often the really complicated cases without good answers, eg. people whose communication abilities are strongly impaired for mental health reasons that usually makes things harder, not impossible though. | 19:10:52 |
| 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 |
