RFC 98 Chat - Public Room Timeline

	RFC 98 Chat	52 Members
	Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98	24 Servers

Load older messages

Sender	Message	Time
5 Nov 2021
jonringer	And the chat logs that world brought up to demonstrate that he wasn't fit for RM, the rooms were definitely somewhere between dismissive to hostile toward. Hard to influence someone when they are on their back foot.	03:47:06
jonringer	* And the chat logs that world brought up to demonstrate that he wasn't fit for RM, the rooms were definitely somewhere between dismissive to hostile toward him. Hard to influence someone when they are on their back foot.	03:47:22
ash (it/its) 🏳️‍⚧️	i agree with that	03:49:12
jonringer	Not saying that he is innocent. He has been dismissive at times. But I think it's an instance where some type of arbitration team could have done more "mentoring" than push back, and it would have been a much better resolution.	03:50:18
jonringer	* Not saying that he is innocent. He has been dismissive at times. He has been short with many people (myself included). But I think it's an instance where some type of arbitration team could have done more "mentoring" than push back, and it would have been a much better resolution.	03:50:55
ash (it/its) 🏳️‍⚧️	yes, that is certainly one of the inspirations for the community team	03:51:42
ash (it/its) 🏳️‍⚧️	(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 🏳️‍🌈	In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org As long as I feel like we all of have Nix as the first priority. I can tolerate some behavior that I may not agree with. But having other people tell me how I should act, say, or think is not making Nix a priority. It's making their narrative a priority. I 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	"a healthy community is necessary for the success of Nix" I believe we have different opinions about what health means. I mean RFC#114, I think you mean RFC#98. this seems to imply that you believe that you personally could not ever do anything to make the Nix community less healthy 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. because if you could, then other people should be able to say something about how you act or what you say 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. and calling out hypothetical problematic behaviour would be making Nix a priority. 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 Kožar	joepie91 🏳️‍🌈: I'm quite worried about the culture of telling people not to express their negative feelings on the RFC	16:00:41
Domen Kožar	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 Kožar	isn't the whole point to nurture and signal to people they can feel safe and accepted?	16:04:56
Domen Kožar	it's all seems backwards	16:05:03
Domen Kožar	* it all seems backwards	16:05:35
Domen Kožar	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 🏳️‍🌈	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 🏳️‍🌈	(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 🏳️‍🌈	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): you accept that you could hypothetically act 'poorly' (for some definition of that term) you seem to agree that a healthy community is necessary for the success of Nix you seem to agree that resolving 'poor' behaviour is necessary for the community to remain healthy resolving such a situation will sometimes (or even often) require calling out the behaviour, because otherwise there is nothing to 'resolve' 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

Show newer messages

Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6