| 4 Nov 2021 |
 Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Something like StackOverflow's "moderator election"? I think there are some group dynamic issues with elections | 15:29:11 |
 lourkeur (Nix OwO) | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Something like StackOverflow's "moderator election"? It's worth taking a look at what they do, but we might run into constituency issues since there's no clear voting rights criteria afaict | 15:30:18 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we're missing a concept of "community member" | 15:30:40 |
| Jonas Chevalier | it would be interesting to put that in place but that's a whole other discussion :) | 15:31:03 |
| lourkeur (Nix OwO) | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
we're missing a concept of "community member" github org membership might do but there might be pitfalls | 15:31:11 |
| lourkeur (Nix OwO) | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
it would be interesting to put that in place but that's a whole other discussion :) yes | 15:31:20 |
 joepie91 π³οΈβπ | also, I should note that a downside of the comrep room approach is that when I became a moderator there, I have spent many, many hours of my time in there explaining moderation decisions in excruciating detail, because the community was not yet used to, well, having moderation at all really (it had devolved into an unusable room full of spam and gore and whatnot) - and that was a very exhausting process as a moderator. but as the understanding among the community grew, that stopped being an issue.
with the NixOS community still being quite healthy comparatively speaking, I doubt this will be as exhausting for moderators as it was at PTIO, but it's still a drawback worth considering
| 15:31:30 |
| lourkeur (Nix OwO) | let's not go there | 15:31:34 |
| lourkeur (Nix OwO) | * let's not go there yet (membership convo) | 15:32:11 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.org
For my second RFC, I was going to take take a lot of the moderation team content from it. As I said earlier, there are parts of it I like (motivation section, value section, having a sustainable rotating moderation team), but there's other parts that I have extreme concern about especially if your disagreement is not with the fundamental values, I feel like it should be possible to raise and discuss these concerns in the context of the existing RFC, rather than needing to create a new one | 15:32:57 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | and more generally I think we should prefer a collaborative approach over a competitive approach here | 15:33:18 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | competing RFCs have their place, but especially in a situation where a lot of different people are coming from a lot of different worldviews, I question whether they can result in a good outcome | 15:34:02 |
| Jonas Chevalier | my understanding is that Irenes' and ashkitten's goals is to have something in place | 15:34:08 |
 jonringer | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
especially if your disagreement is not with the fundamental values, I feel like it should be possible to raise and discuss these concerns in the context of the existing RFC, rather than needing to create a new one If you look at the discussion around the RFC, the political language was fiercely defended. And I think it's a crucial part of it's content | 15:34:30 |
 tomberek | "to have something in place" - That's the goal that I'd say almost everyone agrees on. It quickly diverges after that. | 15:34:46 |
| Jonas Chevalier | so let's start with something small, which we can all agree on | 15:35:11 |
| Jonas Chevalier | this is not the last RFC that we will be writing :) | 15:35:25 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | jonringer: so my views on this are... complicated. on the one hand, in a vacuum I would agree that this should not be necessary to mention and we should be able to focus on intent and empathy/inclusion and constructive outcomes alone. in practice, however, there are certain specific problematic ideologies whose adherents have gotten very good at packaging their ideology in faux rationalism, and explicitly calling out those ideologies as unwanted will provide a shortcut that makes moderation significantly less exhausting | 15:36:36 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we're having similar issues when we're talking about large features to change to nixpkgs. once we start interpolating the future, it creates too much uncertainty and unnecessary dissent | 15:37:08 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | for very similar reasons, I have instituted a blanket ban on alt-right ideology in PTIO - it's simply unworkable to defend against otherwise | 15:37:11 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | at least, if I want to have any energy left for things such as work and cooking :p | 15:37:31 |
| Jonas Chevalier | joepie91 π³οΈβπ: we trust that you will tell us when that will happen | 15:37:56 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | as that specific ideology exploits the well-known adage of "it takes an order of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to produce it" | 15:38:21 |
| Jonas Chevalier | we have to trust our community as well | 15:38:26 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
joepie91 π³οΈβπ: we trust that you will tell us when that will happen I'm not entirely certain what "that" refers to here? | 15:38:53 |
| Jonas Chevalier | if you see alt-right ideology cropping up | 15:39:16 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | ah, right. I tend to call it out when I see it anyway :p | 15:39:38 |
 Domen KoΕΎar | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
for very similar reasons, I have instituted a blanket ban on alt-right ideology in PTIO - it's simply unworkable to defend against otherwise I wonder though, isn't that bigotry? | 15:40:00 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I don't think so | 15:40:35 |
| joepie91 π³οΈβπ | Jonas Chevalier: if you are interested in learning how to spot it and the abusive discussion patterns, I can strongly recommend the "Alt-Right Playbook" - I don't generally recommend videos, but these are very information-dense and incredibly informative and well-explained | 15:40:57 |
