 | RFC 98 Chat | 53 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 25 Servers |
| RFC 98 Chat | 53 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 25 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Nov 2021 | ||
 ash (it/its) ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ | yes, that is certainly one of the inspirations for the community team | 03:51:42 |
| ash (it/its) ๐ณ๏ธโโง๏ธ | (not just sandro specifically, but that is one of the cases it helps) | 03:52:21 |
 Irenes | I want to observe that with sandro's case, it only works if he's bought in to the arbitration. If it's someone he already distrusts reaching out as a peer, without authority, and he's already afraid of where such communication will lead, ... I won't say there's no way to make it work, but it's a lot harder. | 04:23:02 |
| Irenes | I don't see mediation as an exceptional thing, I think there are lots of situations where the need for it can arise | 04:23:18 |
| Irenes | and having a team with a track record of doing it successfully should eventually make it a little easier | 04:23:33 |
| Irenes | as far as getting that buy-in | 04:23:45 |
 jonringer | Sure, no one is going to receive "a stranger" well. I just wish I was made aware of it before having to tell him that although he was the only one to nominate or be nominated, that he was denied the role of release manager. And that these issues (that I was not aware of outside of python package reviews) were going on for months. I'm all in favor of having some type of moderation framework with actual people that can be approached, and that's the parts that I really like about 98. I just don't like the scope of moderation to also encompass behavior need to align to a "social norm" narrative. | 04:34:25 |
| Irenes | yes, I also wish that had happened. | 04:37:41 |
| jonringer | * Sure, no one is going to receive "a stranger" well. I just wish I was made aware of it before having to tell him that although he was the only one to nominate or be nominated, that he was denied the role of release manager. And that these issues (that I was not aware of outside of python package reviews) were going on for months. I'm all in favor of having some type of moderation framework with actual people that can be approached, and that's the parts that I really like about 98. I just don't like the scope of moderation to also encompass behavior needing to align to a "social norm" narrative. | 04:38:20 |
| Irenes | the norms we're talking about are just the stuff about treating each other with respect and all that. | 04:39:12 |
| Irenes | I mean, it's okay to disagree that we should do that but it's not anything sinister. | 04:39:30 |
| Irenes | setting it as a social norm works (or at least that's our belief), in a way that a focus on punishment does not | 04:39:57 |
 joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.orgI am having trouble reconciling this. assuming that you agree that "a healthy community is necessary for the success of Nix", this seems to imply that you believe that you personally could not ever do anything to make the Nix community less healthy; because if you could, then other people should be able to say something about how you act or what you say, to safeguard the health of the community - and calling out hypothetical problematic behaviour would be making Nix a priority. what am I missing here? | 08:52:28 |
| jonringer |
I believe we have different opinions about what health means. I mean RFC#114, I think you mean RFC#98.
I want to see it succeed. But it is within my fallibility to cause damage unintentionally. Also, please avoid ad-hominem comments, it largely serves to make the other defensive.
If I'm out of line, then I would like to know. I'm human. I'm imperfect. I have biases, both conscious and unconscious.
No. I've been advocating for months that someone (or people) with problem resolution skills should be able to effectively arbitrate situations which could escalate. | 15:02:43 |
| jonringer | Me "calling out" behavior, is usually be something already did escalate. And I took issue with the resolution. | 15:06:00 |
| jonringer | * Me "calling out" behavior, is usually because something already did escalate. And I took issue with the resolution. | 15:08:12 |
 Domen Koลพar | joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐: I'm quite worried about the culture of telling people not to express their negative feelings on the RFC | 16:00:41 |
| Domen Koลพar | if someone says they are going to quit our community, the last thing I want to tell them is to say "this is not the place to do it" without providing an alternative | 16:04:30 |
| Domen Koลพar | isn't the whole point to nurture and signal to people they can feel safe and accepted? | 16:04:56 |
| Domen Koลพar | it's all seems backwards | 16:05:03 |
| Domen Koลพar | * it all seems backwards | 16:05:35 |
| Domen Koลพar | 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 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | 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 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | (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 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | 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 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | that's why I asked "what am I missing here?", it was not a rhetorical question | 17:10:18 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | 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 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | 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 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | 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 |
 piegames | 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 |