Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
5 Nov 2021 | ||
* it all seems backwards | 16:05:35 | |
if 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 it | 16:09:47 | |
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 | |
(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 | |
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):
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 | |
that's why I asked "what am I missing here?", it was not a rhetorical question | 17:10:18 | |
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 | |
In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.orgexpressing 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 | |
ie. 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 community | 17:15:47 | |
I 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 | |
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townI think we are both having difficulty understanding each other. I've put most of my efforts into RFC 114 | 17:16:02 | |
piegames: I believe that is due to be clarified in the RFC | 17:16:09 | |
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 | |
for 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 | |
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townAs in: shall I wait for the next push and then ask again? | 17:17:57 | |
ash (it/its) π³οΈββ§οΈ: ^ that's probably a question for you | 17:18:15 | |
ah, okay. we're gonna clarify this in the rfc soon but i can try to explain briefly some of the reasoning here | 17:21:55 | |
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 today | 17:23:01 | |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-is-not-leadership/15750/18 states my position. | 17:23:19 | |
joepie91 π³οΈβπ: values of a community shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be something we all agree with. | 17:24:20 | |
In reply to @kity:kity.wtfNo 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 | |
the language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give a single group preference | 17:25:10 | |
* the language of RFC#114 is oriented to not give any group preference | 17:25:43 | |
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 | |
I 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 | |
jonringer: okay, then I think I better understand where you are coming from now :) | 17:29:37 | |
thanks | 17:29:40 | |
* | 17:29:54 | |
fundamentally there are two main reasons we wanted to avoid a traditional hierarchical moderation structure:
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 | |
My 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 |