RFCSC Meeting 2024-05-14

General business

Present in the meeting: @GetPsyched @infinisil @mat @lheckemann

Unlabelled and New RFCs

RFCs Open for Nominations

RFCs in Discussion

RFCs in FCP

None

Leader of next meeting

@kevincox will lead the next meeting on 2024-05-28

1 Like

I am deeply disappointed to see that the RFCSC has chosen to blindly continue business as usual for RFC 175 and 176.

RFC 175 I consider disingenuous in nature, because –as already discussed in more detail elsewhere– the effective consequences of its proposal are not aligned with the words used to describe it. Additionally, its manifesto in the appendix is inflammatory and not appropriate for the RFC process (or any community interaction, generally).

RFC 176 does not even attempt to properly follow the process, it is an obvious knee-jerk reaction and not worthy of further discussion in that state.

I don’t think that continuing with the usual procedure would be a constructive use of our time, nor that it would meaningfully fix the problems which need to be addressed. Both should be closed or marked as draft, and the authors should rework the RFCs before reopening.

11 Likes

Please don’t label my considerations for the health of the moderation process as “knee-jerk” reaction. Thank you.

1 Like

While I personally tend to agree with you @piegames, it is not the RFCSC’s job to make any decisions over RFCs. They’re only there to keep RFCs moving (either towards acceptance or rejection). You can read more about this here.

1 Like

Especially since there isn’t even an RFC, just a one-line edit.

2 Likes

Oh yeah 176 is not really a valid RFC in its current state, that could not get accepted as is.

2 Likes

Please consider actually writing an RFC then. Thank you

2 Likes

While I understand your point, I think that the RFCSC should ensure that RFCs at least meet the formal standards. For RFC 176 I think we can all agree that this is not the case. For RFC 175 the appendix is really inappropriate, but maybe this should be handled by the moderation team instead.

5 Likes

Yeah that’s fair. Considering that, I don’t think we should’ve marked 176 as open for nominations, and instead should’ve marked it as a draft. I’ll check in with the RFCSC to get that sorted out

5 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

6 Likes

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

6 Likes

That room is yet another unofficial, poorly moderated forum where trolls coordinate, racist invective is explained away, and ironically—no dissent is permitted.

2 Likes

I don’t agree with you being muted there, but where has anything race related at all been said? It’s not really relevant here so feel free to PM.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes

Since you are free to post here though, and I really am not (without further risking my ability to do so).

You are (obviously) free to post here, but nobody is free to turn Nix back into a high school debate club, or breach the CoC - which are both things that Nix has allowed too much of for far too long.

RFC discussion should happen in Nix spaces, and people shouldn’t have to leave those spaces to discuss them.

That being said, the Assembly is working on what future governance will look like and mostly supersedes this RFC. If there’s specific points that you would like to be heard you are welcome to come have those conversations in the spaces that have been designated for them (Zulip) as we make progress towards more structured governance.

2 Likes