 | RFC 98 Chat | 56 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 25 Servers |
| RFC 98 Chat | 56 Members |
| Discussion on RFC 98 [Community Team] https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 | 25 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 3 Nov 2021 | ||
 ryblade | tables all the way | 19:52:05 |
 GallantChef | tfw clear, concise, correct documentation | 19:52:16 |
| GallantChef | But yes, simpler and more unambiguous language is better, especially if this is going to be something translated or presented to an international community | 19:52:59 |
| GallantChef | It's paramount that it's easy to understand | 19:53:06 |
| ryblade | too bad it probably can't be simple enough to represent in pictograms, like those ikea furniture instructions :D | 19:55:00 |
| ryblade | but we should do our best all the same | 19:55:22 |
| ryblade | with regards to adapting this CoC to the rust one, i think even from line one, it's got that problem of having a huge laundry list of subgroups listed as examples of people you're supposed to be sensitive towards. that list is already enormous and it will always require updating. can't we just say "everyone" instead of having to point out all kinds of specific examples? otherwise it might make listed groups feel more entitled to moderator intervention than people who are not mentioned specifically. | 20:02:42 |
| GallantChef | I second that | 20:02:57 |
| ryblade | being so specific about each and every type of group we're supposed to respect might also make it impossible for members of the international community to participate, because they may have internet filters or laws against accessing material that is seen as promoting "western values". if anyone with the talent to contribute to nixos is among them, they might get arrested for helping a group of people with very clearly and objectively stated goals towards providing a safe environment for what their countries may perceive as sinners or criminals. that puts them in danger. and it robs us of potential talent, creating a lose-lose situation for all of us. | 20:03:12 |
| GallantChef | My thoughts on how to better write a line like that involves something to the effect of welcome all based on the contents of their character and not their phenotype | 20:04:10 |
| ryblade | YES. | 20:04:21 |
| ryblade | MLK for the win. | 20:04:23 |
| GallantChef | * My thoughts on how to better write a line like that, involves something to the effect of "welcome all based on the contents of their character and not their phenotype" | 20:04:23 |
| GallantChef | I'm dipping out for now, will check back in later. I'm definitely interested in proofreading and editing when the time comes | 20:04:52 |
| ryblade | glad i came here when i did to discuss this with you, and very pleased to meet you, GallantChef | 20:05:18 |
| GallantChef | Likewise | 20:06:06 |
| ryblade | In reply to @jonringer:matrix.orgi agree, and i don't see how that conflicts with my ideas of telling people to use the block feature unless the blocking doesn't work for some fringe reason usually attributed to abuse of service. tell people to block, first. if that DOESN'T work, call a moderator. simple as. | 20:07:38 |
| ryblade | repeatedly crying for a moderator without using the block feature at all should also permit the moderator to use their discretion to ban said crybabies. like calling 911 because mcdonalds is out of nuggets. | 20:08:50 |
| ryblade | * repeatedly crying for a moderator without using the block feature at all should also permit the moderator to use their discretion to ban said crybabies. kinda like how calling 911 because mcdonalds is out of nuggets is going to get you into trouble. | 20:09:19 |
| ryblade | * repeatedly crying for a moderator without using the block feature at all should also permit the moderator to use their discretion to ban said crybabies. kinda like how calling 911 twelve times a week because your neighbours are loud is going to get you into trouble with the police. | 20:09:58 |
| ryblade | oh man, i think i'm seeing something wrong with every single line so far | 20:12:23 |
| ryblade | in the rust coc, that is | 20:12:26 |
| ryblade | for example: "Please avoid using overtly sexual aliases". funny story. i was playing smash brothers one day, when my brother-in-law was in the same room. i'm playing as pikachu, spamming thunder. "PIKA! PIKA! PIKA!" said the little yellow mouse. "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT MOUSE SAYING?!" says my brother-in-law. "Do you even know what that means in Brazil?" he asks. he then proceeds to tell me that "pika" is very rude slang for "penis" in brazilian portuguese. how Nintendo was supposed to accommodate for that offense is anybody's guess! | 20:14:56 |
| ryblade | "be kind and courteous": i'd be kicked out of here if i used a certain word that people use to show affection for one another in australia... | 20:16:36 |
| ryblade | not to nit pick, but it's really impossible to keep everyone happy. it's like wargames, the only way to win is to not play. | 20:17:25 |
 jonringer | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.orgOvert offenses are generally easy to call out. But I think dismissive and negative commentary should also not be addressed (probably not by banning, but by bringing it up in a private converstation in the individual) | 20:17:41 |
| jonringer | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org* Overt offenses are generally easy to call out. But I think dismissive and negative commentary should also not be addressed (probably not by banning, but by bringing it up in a private conversation in the individual) | 20:17:51 |
| jonringer | * Overt offenses are generally easy to call out. But I think dismissive and negative commentary should also not be addressed (probably not by banning, but by bringing it up in a private conversation in the individual). with smaller infractions, someone is going to be less likely to say, "hey this per needs to be banned". But I could see, "hey this person is exhibiting unproductive behavior, and it's taking away from my desire to contribute to nix" | 20:18:39 |
| jonringer | example: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120729#discussion_r622653026 | 20:19:00 |
| jonringer | * Overt offenses are generally easy to call out. But I think dismissive and negative commentary should also not be addressed (probably not by banning, but by bringing it up in a private conversation in the individual). with smaller infractions, someone is going to be less likely to say, "hey this person needs to be banned". But I could see, "hey this person is exhibiting unproductive behavior, and it's taking away from my desire to contribute to nix" | 20:19:20 |