!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
@domenkozar:matrix.orgDomen KoΕΎar * it all seems backwards 16:05:35
@domenkozar:matrix.orgDomen KoΕΎarif there's was ever a sign of oppressive authoritarianism in our community it's this kind of stuff happening on the very RFC that is saying to prevent it16:09:47
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ jonringer: to clarify, my message wasn't a personal attack, nor an attempt to imply that you are behaving problematically. I'm just trying to better understand where you're drawing the lines of what is and isn't acceptable in the context of Nix's health as a project, because I cannot logically resolve the statements you've made so far into a clear conclusion 17:03:59
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ(also, for the sake of my question, the exact definition of 'healthy' doesn't really matter - the question applies whether you follow 98 or 114 as your guideline)17:04:42
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ

to try and word it more bluntly, to hopefully make more obvious where I'm seeing a logical contradiction (without intending to personally attack you):

  1. you accept that you could hypothetically act 'poorly' (for some definition of that term)
  2. you seem to agree that a healthy community is necessary for the success of Nix
  3. you seem to agree that resolving 'poor' behaviour is necessary for the community to remain healthy
  4. resolving such a situation will sometimes (or even often) require calling out the behaviour, because otherwise there is nothing to 'resolve'
  5. but you would not accept someone criticizing you on your behaviour or comments (ie. calling it out)

so in the hypothetical situation that you are behaving 'poorly', if one is not allowed to call it out so that it can be resolved (through mediation or otherwise), then that logically means that the behaviour cannot be corrected, and therefore the 'healthy community' objective cannot be achieved. no?

17:09:59
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆthat's why I asked "what am I missing here?", it was not a rhetorical question17:10:18
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ we clearly have some kind of diverging view on some aspect of this, but it's not clear to me what exactly it is 17:10:36
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ
In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
joepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ: I'm quite worried about the culture of telling people not to express their negative feelings on the RFC
expressing negative feelings is fine, and plenty of people have been doing so constructively over the past several... has it been months? but the emphasis there is on "constructively" - those expressions do need to come from a fundamentally empathic stance, a realization that one's own concerns are not the only ones that matter and that there is always going to be some weighing of competing interests and concerns.
17:15:09
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆie. it is not the opinion that is the problem, it's the way that a handful of people are choosing to express that opinion; in a hostile, uncooperative manner that ultimately does not contribute to improving the RFC to better represent the community17:15:47
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegamesI just read the RFC again. Can somebody please re-explain me the hierarchies part? Why is "Create a hierarchical power structure" a non-goal, why did you decide against? And how does your proposal differ on that point?17:15:54
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringer
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: to clarify, my message wasn't a personal attack, nor an attempt to imply that you are behaving problematically. I'm just trying to better understand where you're drawing the lines of what is and isn't acceptable in the context of Nix's health as a project, because I cannot logically resolve the statements you've made so far into a clear conclusion
I think we are both having difficulty understanding each other. I've put most of my efforts into RFC 114
17:16:02
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ piegames: I believe that is due to be clarified in the RFC 17:16:09
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ jonringer: quite likely, but that is why I'm asking these clarifying questions; I would like to better understand your position on this 17:16:39
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆfor that same reason of operating from a fundamentally empathic stance; understanding your concerns and boundaries (and, hopefully, considering them in 98) seems a lot more constructive to me than ignoring them and turning it into what would essentially become an RFC popularity contest (if there is no mutual understanding)17:17:47
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegames
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
piegames: I believe that is due to be clarified in the RFC
As in: shall I wait for the next push and then ask again?
17:17:57
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ ash (it/its) πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ: ^ that's probably a question for you 17:18:15
@kity:kity.wtfash (it/its) πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈah, okay. we're gonna clarify this in the rfc soon but i can try to explain briefly some of the reasoning here17:21:55
@kity:kity.wtfash (it/its) πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈpardon if this is poorly expressed or anything, i'm currently sitting in a park and i haven't put my brain together completely for today17:23:01
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringer joepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-is-not-leadership/15750/18 states my position. 17:23:19
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringer joepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ: values of a community shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be something we all agree with. 17:24:20
@piegames:matrix.orgpiegames
In reply to @kity:kity.wtf
ah, okay. we're gonna clarify this in the rfc soon but i can try to explain briefly some of the reasoning here
No pressure. It appears that the RFC is currently getting a major overhaul internally? In that case, may I suggest to close the current RFC and open a new one when it's done. Might help with the discussion(s).
17:25:08
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringerthe language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give a single group preference17:25:10
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringer * the language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give any group preference17:25:43
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ jonringer: okay, so trying to fit this into the earlier list of 'logical components': would it be accurate to say that you are not entirely opposed to "being told how you should act, say, or think" (as your earlier message implied), but rather you are opposed to being told that outside of a specific set of unacceptable behaviours? 17:26:57
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringerI think that's pretty accurate. If I'm disruptive, let me know. But focus on my behavior, not me as a person. I can change behaviors, but I don't want to change who I am.17:29:07
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ jonringer: okay, then I think I better understand where you are coming from now :) 17:29:37
@joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆthanks17:29:40
* @joepie91:pixie.townjoepie91 πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆ percolates thoughts for a bit17:29:54
@kity:kity.wtfash (it/its) πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ

fundamentally there are two main reasons we wanted to avoid a traditional hierarchical moderation structure:

  • to avoid having moderators be out of touch with the community's needs
  • to educate and empower community members in order to ensure long-term sustainability

right now, if graham were to quit or disappear or such, we'd be pretty much without someone that has the domain knowledge to do his job. with a traditional hierarchical structure, we could ask that moderators appoint someone else before they leave, but it's a lot of domain knowledge to convey on a short timescale (not just how the tools work, but the details of community structure & dynamics, conflict resolution, mediation, how to identify and address problematic behaviors, etc)

by focusing on empowering the community as a whole and constantly building these leadership skills in everyone, as well as encouraging them to join the community team, we avoid both of these issues

17:32:15
@jonringer:matrix.orgjonringerMy issue with terms like "social norms" is that encompasses a lot of about the background of an individual, and not everyone may want to fit into the mold they will be forced into. We are (at least I think) a community centered around a technology. Not instilling cultural values.17:32:18

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6