| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | 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:pixie.town | 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 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | or, in less words: I think the social norms are too intertwined with the proposed moderation mechanism to separate them out | 17:16:35 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I view RFCs like I view PRs. Large PRs are harder to merge because the scope is so much larger, and there is more to nit pick | 17:16:51 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | sure - but as I've mentioned before, community management doesn't really modularize like code does, unfortunately | 17:17:17 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Having more focused discussion allows for the dialogue to progress more. | 17:17:25 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | I think it can be compartmentalized to some degrees. What laws there should be, and how those laws are enforced is one logical division | 17:18:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think it would be a superficial form of 'progress'; one that certainly reduces conflict in the short term, but whose outcome would be significantly worse than a whole-system analysis would produce, leaving too many conflicting/unspecified things that will produce conflict in the future | 17:18:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and I'm generally in favour of eating the upfront cost rather than multiplying it many times and smearing it out over the longer term, in situations like these | 17:19:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
I think it can be compartmentalized to some degrees. What laws there should be, and how those laws are enforced is one logical division "laws" are a legalistic system, though - which isn't (or at least shouldn't be) what we're building here. even nation states can barely make it work | 17:19:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | legalistic systems are much easier to compartmentalize precisely because they do not address a system as a whole | 17:19:43 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and that is an unfortunate necessity at nation scale, but the results aren't great | 17:19:58 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Let me also be clear, if forcing people to abide by someone's definition of "social norms", "fascism", and "bigotry". I'm leaving the community | 17:20:20 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I struggle to read that as anything other than "I will decide what I say and how I behave, and other people will just have to deal with it" | 17:20:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | if that is not what you meant, please clarify :/ | 17:21:01 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | what | 17:21:09 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | Everyone has free will, and can act as they choose. RFC 114 is there to ensure that people act productively with others, and there's some framework. | 17:22:12 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | RFC 98, in its current state, is also enforcing a political narrative | 17:22:30 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | so is RFC 114. | 17:22:45 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | how so | 17:22:53 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it's just a political (or more accurately: ideological) view that aligns more with the status quo of the world in which NixOS exists | 17:23:02 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and therefore stands out less | 17:23:06 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavior | 17:23:44 |
| @jonringer:matrix.org | * other than mentions of "marginalized communities", almost all of the content is behavioral | 17:23:48 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I think it would be a superficial form of 'progress'; one that certainly reduces conflict in the short term, but whose outcome would be significantly worse than a whole-system analysis would produce, leaving too many conflicting/unspecified things that will produce conflict in the future This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. | 17:24:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that doesn't change that there is an ideological conviction behind the RFC, even if it doesn't become obvious from the text; in this case, a conviction that only [blatant] outward behaviour should be a factor in making moderation decisions, and not intent or impact | 17:24:59 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the difference in RFC 98 is that it states this ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the difference in RFC 98 is that it states its ideological conviction explicitly, rather than benefiting from its proximity to the status quo by leaving it implicit | 17:25:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | both of them are ideologically-motivated, and the same will be true for any proposal on moderation policy and social norms | 17:26:05 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
This is back to making those abstract claims. I suppose you have something clear in your head but it's not obvious what it is. I described this in a bit more concrete detail here: https://matrix.to/#/!YvjJmbmVxFKdRqsLPx:nixos.org/$wMLNea8QP68EDUNABpc9B15vAToYRBhOKwdN5AvGWW8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=pixie.town | 17:26:38 |
