| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Domen Koลพar | The current unknown membership status of 98 doesn't signal trust and thus leaves room for speculation for such questions as why are the members hidden of they are neutral | 15:55:08 |
 joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | I am open to discussion on a lot of details regarding community management, but "fascism and bigotry are undesirable and we should be empathic and inclusive instead" is a position that I will not, under any circumstances, deviate from | 15:55:20 |
| Domen Koลพar | * The current unknown membership status of 98 doesn't signal trust and thus leaves room for speculation for such questions as why are the members hidden if they are neutral | 15:55:25 |
| Domen Koลพar | joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ fascism is not a defined term | 15:56:27 |
 Jonas Chevalier | This whole Alt-left vs Alt-right is irrelevant to NixOS. Why are we even talking about that | 15:56:51 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | it's actually fairly well-defined, even if adherence to the definition is... not great | 15:56:52 |
| Domen Koลพar | How do you define it then? | 15:57:17 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | but feel free to replace it with "oppressive authoritarianism" if you prefer, for the purpose of this conversation they're mostly interchangeable | 15:57:31 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | and that's maybe a bit more of a "says it on the tin" term for it | 15:57:58 |
| Jonas Chevalier | You can be alt-right or alt-left and contribute to nixpkgs. Just don't come talk or try to impose your political views. | 15:58:01 |
 jonringer | I would really like to remove the political labels from the discussion. They have charged meaning, and are likely more disruptive to the conversation than productive | 15:58:24 |
| Jonas Chevalier | We are beings with multiple dimensions | 15:58:27 |
| Jonas Chevalier | We can have a productive conversation, and have different views of the world | 15:58:43 |
 GallantChef | I've legit been losing sleep over this, so I'm going to leave the community for now. I legitimately wish you all well, and I hope from the bottom of my heart that together you come to a solution that works for everyone | 15:59:08 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
So it's allowed to be prejudiced based ona sum of identify but not on a sum of deliberate choices? anyway, I was going to ask: I'm not entirely sure what you mean with this, can you clarify? | 15:59:10 |
| jonringer | RFC 98 is about enacting a moderation team, the discussion should related to the content; without too much extra | 15:59:26 |
| GallantChef | I bear no one any enmity, not even joepie. I apologize if my speech sounded accusative or rude. Thank you for your patience | 15:59:38 |
| GallantChef left the room. | 15:59:49 |
| Domen Koลพar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
but feel free to replace it with "oppressive authoritarianism" if you prefer, for the purpose of this conversation they're mostly interchangeable Can we then replace it with that term, as I think it's less vague? | 16:04:36 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | jonringer: also, did you understand what I meant with the point about sometimes needing 'policy shortcuts' for effective moderation? as that topic kinda got interrupted :p | 16:04:38 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | In reply to @domenkozar:matrix.org
Can we then replace it with that term, as I think it's less vague? a term like that or similar sounds like it would be a good idea, yeah | 16:05:04 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | there's probably a more exact term that I can't immediately think of | 16:05:14 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | but I'd personally consider that a reasonable change request | 16:05:37 |
| joepie91 ๐ณ๏ธโ๐ | (of course I am neither the author nor a shepherd of the RFC, so it's not really my decision :p but I would expect the responsible people to not have any issues with a clarification like this either) | 16:06:26 |
| Domen Koลพar | I would go into details of oppressive authoritarianism, but I don't want to derail the discussion more than I did already :) | 16:10:58 |
| jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
jonringer: also, did you understand what I meant with the point about sometimes needing 'policy shortcuts' for effective moderation? as that topic kinda got interrupted :p In my moderation RFC was going to define a banning process where people could be banned for 48hrs to 72hrs before making a longer more official one | 16:10:59 |
| jonringer | yes i understand that being able to quickly remove someone can be beneficial | 16:11:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I would like to submit exhibit N, here is how the SerenityOS handles moderation on their Discord:
## Hello, and welcome to the SerenityOS Discord.
Project GitHub: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity
SerenityOS FAQ: https://serenityos.org/faq/
Andreas FAQ: https://awesomekling.github.io/faq/
The purpose of this server is to facilitate productive development of the SerenityOS project. Any behavior that runs counter to that goal will not be tolerated.
## Some basic rules:
1. Do the best you can, both in code and in communication. Expect others to do the same.
2. Politics, religion and sex are not appropriate topics here. Discuss them elsewhere.
3. Any discussion unrelated to the SerenityOS project belongs in the off-topic channel.
4. Try your best to keep a positive attitude, and try to not drag others down if/when you're having a bad day.
5. Don't complain about things you are not actively engaged in improving. This includes low-effort whining like "$THING is trash". Don't shit on other projects, companies, or communities.
6. If you need help building SerenityOS, use the build-problems channel.
8. Talk is cheap. Don't waste other people's time by talking about your great ideas if you don't also spend time implementing your ideas. We have no need for "idea guys"
9. Don't ask other people to look things up for you. If a question can be answered by consulting the code, the git history, the issue tracker, or a search engine, look it up yourself.
10. Avoid when-posting. "When will Serenity get this feature?", "When will you do X?", etc. If you want to see something happen, you make it happen.
11. Refrain from excitement-posting in development channels. We are all excited about SerenityOS, but please don't add unnecessary noise.
12. If a bug is discussed, please make sure there's a GitHub issue for it.
13. No soliciting of any kind.
Thank you for reading, have a great day! :caret:
| 16:12:04 |
| Jonas Chevalier | of course they're still at a size where a BDFL can handle the moderation | 16:13:01 |
| Jonas Chevalier | but I think there is something interesting and right there | 16:13:18 |
