Comment by jraph
1 year ago
From this document, it appears something obviously wrong is happening in this community, but as an outsider new to all this, it's very hard to understand what's going on.
The document is very long and I don't really get the structure. It's very hard to make anything of it really. It somewhat makes me suspicious, even. I would write exactly like this if I knew how to do this and had to sidestep an issue. Long, hard to follow stuff filled with words.
Is there a clear summary, an easy-to-follow timeline? (of course these are always going to be presented from one side)
Also,
> Simultaneously, this group, still upset about the failure of RFC 98, is using the myth of fascism combined with an abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance
- What is the myth of fascism?
- What is the abusive extension of the paradox of tolerance?
I get the paradox of tolerance is that you can't really tolerate intolerance or else you'll be eaten. [1]
> The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them
If you want a summary I can give you a really quick one. I've watched this bias, manipulative and corrosive moderating action escalate from the moment the team was created.
I was there arguing against the moderation team when it was first founded because I believe in principles of consent and civility, not compulsion and coersion, which were already starting to manifest themselves in argument for the moderation team to begin with. I was very vocal at the time, but not radical, when I lost I didn't fight it. I just consented and watched as things got worse.
I've watched a lot of people, some who were quite prolific contributors walk away, I've watched extremely well reasoned positions, including some of my own going completely ignored or silenced, and I've watched technical problems that could and should have been addressed by some of these very same people (some of which were actively being worked on previously) go completely stale.
I understand the document is "a lot of words", which I am not necessarily a big fan of either. But we have tried several times to give specific examples of corruption and been shot down, so we felt the only way to show proper cause at this point, that would be impossible to dismiss, would be to compile a much longer and more thorough narrative.
And as it states at the top, it is by no means exhaustive. Only a few months worth of activity in the 4 years or so I've been watching this trainwreck. Also, the last few days have shown us almost and equal if not moreso amount of strife.
It appears the bulk of the actual requested changes are here: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175
When there's stuff like this going on, I don't think it's helpful to try and do a full review of who did what wrong, or what the hypothetical motivations of any of these groups of people are, but instead to just review the actual proposed policy changes.
Yes and no.
It's often useful to know the motivation / reason behind a change. Especially a policy change. Maybe the change can subtly enable harmful stuff you don't see coming if you don't have the context around the change.
You also want to know the intents being a change to know if the change actually works towards the intended goal while reviewing. Or else how do you check if the change help?
It would be like a code change that doesn't say what it fixes or add, how do you check it does the right things?
Similar impression here. I think we're not the target audience of this document.
Yeah, the post just got flagged, maybe for the best.
The Nix moderation team is woke and they're purging non-woke people from Nix.