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?

In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
joepie91 🏳️‍🌈: I'm quite worried about the culture of telling people not to express their negative feelings on the RFC

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

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
piegames: I believe that is due to be clarified in the RFC

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

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