| 3 Nov 2021 |
 jonringer | Anyway, didn't intend to bring that baggage back up. But similar individuals are involved, and a similar outcry for enacting a safe space was called for. It's my personal opinion that RFC#98 was created in response to it. | 19:39:20 |
 GallantChef | Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing | 19:39:46 |
| GallantChef | But a CoC for a CoC's sake that touches enough of the points that are desired may be a good middle way | 19:40:08 |
 ryblade | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
We want to discourage drama, and encourage working together and this is precisely why we can't let moderation devolve into hunting down "offensive" people, that is a bloodsport that never, ever ends. just look at twitter, it's a warzone out there! | 19:40:13 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing That's not strictly true. I probably wouldn't notice 98 if all I did was issues and PRs | 19:40:25 |
| GallantChef | I suppose I'm less concerned about 98 initself rather than the possible (inevitable) consequences of enacting such a thing | 19:41:07 |
| GallantChef | But that leads to "extrapolation" as you called it | 19:41:13 |
| GallantChef | But I suspect you share my concern | 19:41:18 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
Enacting a safe space would discourage good contributors from contributing * That's not strictly true. I probably wouldn't notice 98 being ratified if all I did was issues and PRs. | 19:41:23 |
| GallantChef | * Although I suspect you share my concern | 19:41:40 |
| jonringer | I summarized my concern: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/moderation-is-not-leadership/15750/18? | 19:42:06 |
| ryblade | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
But a CoC for a CoC's sake that touches enough of the points that are desired may be a good middle way that kind of reminds me of stallman's reasons for creating the GPL, even though he fundamentally disagrees with the concept of software licenses entirely. in a world where licenses are a reality, having one you can agree with is better than having none at all. i suppose the same can be said about CoCs. | 19:42:43 |
| GallantChef | That's a decent perspective | 19:43:30 |
| GallantChef | I don't typically see eye to eye with rms, but I definitely agree with that | 19:43:51 |
| ryblade | same | 19:44:16 |
| GallantChef | So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
| 19:46:13 |
| GallantChef | * So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
| 19:46:58 |
| jonringer | In reply to @gallantchef:matrix.foxears.life
So based on your post there, I think the main safeguards that could be implemented are:
- Clearly scoping what the powers of the moderation team are
- Coming up with a way to select for staff
- Enumerating what is or isn't an actionable offense in unambiguous language
- Use non-partisan language in the CoC that can't be interpreted with a slant
- Providing transparency for said processes (bans, elections/appointment, etc.)
The first 2 I'll do in the moderation RFC, the last two will be part of the CoC RFC. The 3rd should be satisfied by the CoC as well | 19:47:46 |
| ryblade | ... and perhaps a brief mention on how a user can take their own action to curate their environment (blocking, etc.)? perhaps worded in a way that sounds more... i dunno... "empowering", rather than dismissive. if that makes sense. | 19:48:01 |
| GallantChef | That's brilliant, actually | 19:48:13 |
| GallantChef | Here in the Nix community, we encourage contributors to be empowered and take control of their environment thru such and such | 19:48:40 |
| GallantChef | [demonstrative/pronoun] likes that sort of rhetoric | 19:48:56 |
| ryblade | though perhaps if necessary, a clear delineation of where your responsibilities end and the moderators' responsibilities begin might also help. this sort of thing could be easily represented in a table. | 19:50:12 |
| GallantChef | Second, tables are good | 19:50:23 |
| GallantChef | Basically it could read as "when to contact a moderator" | 19:50:39 |
| GallantChef | Or "when to escalate" | 19:50:43 |
| ryblade | tables would be best | 19:51:02 |
| jonringer | In reply to @ryblade:matrix.org
... and perhaps a brief mention on how a user can take their own action to curate their environment (blocking, etc.)? perhaps worded in a way that sounds more... i dunno... "empowering", rather than dismissive. if that makes sense. I think the best solution is that anyone within the nix community can step in and help arbitrate minor miscommunications. However, that puts more responsibility on everyone. And not everyone wants to step up. which is why a moderation team should still be around | 19:51:25 |
| GallantChef | Self-moderation is truly ideal | 19:51:41 |
| ryblade | using fluffy, long paragraphs makes it easy to gloss over the details, and makes it much easier to sneak vague, weasily content into updates to the document. the bigger the document, the bigger the pork. | 19:51:50 |
