| 4 Nov 2021 |
 @abathur:matrix.org | not necessarily saying that you don't need broad analysis and synthesis | 16:39:30 |
| @abathur:matrix.org | but more that if you start with a document where some nontrivial percent of the community can find something that makes them uncomfortable, the discourse around the effort can end up hopelessly poisoned regardless of how ready the authors are to negotiate and address concerns | 16:41:40 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
maybe we should ask him what he wants :p eelco already seems perpetually busy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to expect them to define the end goal for something that they have not shown active interest in :p | 16:41:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | especially as it's not clear what the benefit of doing so would be; it can't really be argued to 'represent the community', and so whatever the answer ends up being, it would essentially be an authoritarian decision | 16:42:39 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it seems more fruitful for me to discuss this among the community, get people aligned on this, understand each other's viewpoints, and build something durable that as many people as possible feel represented by | 16:43:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @abathur:matrix.org
but more that if you start with a document where some nontrivial percent of the community can find something that makes them uncomfortable, the discourse around the effort can end up hopelessly poisoned regardless of how ready the authors are to negotiate and address concerns honestly, I agree with the authors here; this is 'necessary conflict'. I'm sure it would be easier to introduce things piecemeal, but IME usually piecemeal processes tend to garner more approval mainly because most people involved do not have the full picture of the end goal and each individual piece looks fine - even if they would disagree with the whole thing that it results in. I think it's better to have all the cards on the table | 16:45:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | also because addressing concerns about one part may well resolve issues with another part indirectly | 16:46:08 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
it seems more fruitful for me to discuss this among the community, get people aligned on this, understand each other's viewpoints, and build something durable that as many people as possible feel represented by just to be clear; the people in this channel don't represent the community at large. We're basically making a decision for everyone, which is part of the problem. | 16:46:42 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, that is what the RFC process is for; to ask for input from the broader community (and I imagine that's why some people objected to creating this room) | 16:47:16 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | we're going a bit back to the notion of contributor or "voting member" | 16:47:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | but I don't see the conversation here as 'making decisions', but rather as a way to resolve misunderstandings and disagreements through a higher-bandwidth medium, so that the RFC discussion on github can be returned to with a better shared model of the goals and mechanisms | 16:48:02 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * we're going a bit back to the notion of contributor or "voting member" (the RFC process itself isn't entirely democratic) | 16:49:00 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | I mean, hopefully the outcome will be also satisfactory to the public at large | 16:51:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | 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 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | * I mean, hopefully the outcome will be also satisfactory to the public at large (and the minority groups) | 16:52:34 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | 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:pixie.town | 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: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? | 16:56:35 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | yeah I'm out of energy for today | 17:00:51 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | ideally the next step would be to incorporate all of this discussion into the RFC somehow, or create a new one | 17:01:38 |
| @zimbatm:numtide.com | /cc Irenes and ash (it/its) 🏳️⚧️ | 17:02:16 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | or a comment on the github issue anyway | 17:03:06 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org | 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:matrix.org | 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:pixie.town | jonringer: not sure I understand. in the sense of incorporating the things discussed here into RFC 114, you mean? | 17:08:20 |
| @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 |
