| 4 Nov 2021 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I hope so, too. I'm not sure you can do much more than having an open public discussion and preventing trolling or other disruptive tactics | 16:52:28 |
 Jonas Chevalier | * I mean, hopefully the outcome will be also satisfactory to the public at large (and the minority groups) | 16:52:34 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | not every single community member will care about this topic, after all, or those that do may trust that someone else sorts it out | 16:52:51 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I would hope that those who do care about getting involved in the conversation, find their way to the RFC or here | 16:53:31 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: Jonas Chevalier: also, just to be sure I didn't miss anything, were there any concerns you've raised that I didn't respond to yet? | 16:56:35 |
| Jonas Chevalier | yeah I'm out of energy for today | 17:00:51 |
| Jonas Chevalier | ideally the next step would be to incorporate all of this discussion into the RFC somehow, or create a new one | 17:01:38 |
| Jonas Chevalier | /cc Irenes and ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | 17:02:16 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | or a comment on the github issue anyway | 17:03:06 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: Jonas Chevalier: also, just to be sure I didn't miss anything, were there any concerns you've raised that I didn't respond to yet? I'm trying to focus on RFC 114, as this discussion won't have much wait during the RFCSC meetings | 17:07:08 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: Jonas Chevalier: also, just to be sure I didn't miss anything, were there any concerns you've raised that I didn't respond to yet? * I'm trying to focus on RFC 114, as this discussion won't have much weight during the RFCSC meetings | 17:07:15 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | jonringer: not sure I understand. in the sense of incorporating the things discussed here into RFC 114, you mean? | 17:08:20 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: not sure I understand. in the sense of incorporating the things discussed here into RFC 114, you mean? RFC 114 is only meant to provide a framework for acceptable behavior. It does not take into consideration any type of moderation action. And the discussion recently has been about moderation actions | 17:10:09 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | right. I'm still in doubt whether it is a good idea to split things out like that, for a few reasons:
- since the moderation aspect seems to be a lot more controversial than the social norms aspect, we could end up in a situation where we technically have a CoC, but in practice it is not enforced because there is no sustainable moderation structure for actually doing so and the moderation structure RFC is stuck in bikeshed land - which would over time erode trust in the CoC itself since it doesn't do anything, and create an outward impression that as a community we just have the CoC to 'appear progressive' rather than to actually ensure a welcoming and inclusive community
- a major goal of RFC98 is to establish a non-hierarchical moderation structure, which itself overlaps/intersects with social norms; the social norms will need to be a major defining factor in how the processes are defined to work, since in a non-hierarchical moderation structure, trust is placed in (fairly immutable) processes and norms rather than individuals in a hierarchy. trying to establish social norms in isolation from the mechanisms to enforce them, could lead to a situation where the norms in the CoC are not in line with the norms encoded in the moderation structure, eg. because the moderation structure heavily relies on mutual empathy and deescalation but the social norms in the CoC do not specify this
| 17:15:42 |
