overriding methods
#Governance
chrome cove
clear thicket
lambdas all the way
amber garnet
_lambdas all the way_
I ❤️lamdba
wintry abyss
Yeah, that.
wintry abyss
Poking for final feedback, lest it be merged so that we can continue doing real work
dense tulip
The "What this document is not" section https://gist.github.com/TheCurle/0fb4e9483c8095e2cb77613eb0ddca39#what-this-document-is-not reads slightly strangely to me, but overall lgtm
wintry abyss
well, a lot of people seemed to be rules lawyering what we should and shouldn't do
and i didn't want to bother with the inevitability of constantly adjusting the wording of the document to prevent that
so i just went "this won't stop that. this is just what we think is necessary"
dense tulip
I mean more the phrasing of the lasts two points
The code of conduct of the project is taken to be the content of the Contributor Covenant, so this document is not the code of conduct.
Just reads weirdly to me, contents wise it’s ok (same with the point underneath it)
light ingot
Poking for final feedback, lest it be merged so that we can continue doing real ...
address my feedback 
clear thicket
Just reads weirdly to me, contents wise it’s ok (same with the point underneath ...
I see what you mean
dusky pumice
How are we doing with the governance?
wintry abyss
There's like two minor tweaks people want that I haven't had enough time to poke. Maintainers of the repo have push access to my fork and can make that tweak if necessary
dusky pumice
@light ingot want to push your changes directly?
light ingot
well I did the changes
dusky pumice
@wintry abyss ^
wintry abyss
Not sure what I need to do here. It seems ready to merge to me.
dusky pumice
I think cpw already approved it
idk if @rapid stream and @opaque badger did
(in doubt, might as well ask the SC for approval)
rapid stream
Can I get a link?
dusky pumice
earnest anvil
I have a question regarding weighting of opinions between Maintainers. I'm a bit confused by this part - it sounds contradictory to me:
Though Maintainers may individually or collectively have different access rights across the project's many repositories or infrastructure services, all Maintainers within the team are considered equal to each other with respect to their rights within the team's governance.
Does "their rights within the team's governance" refer to this?
The Maintainers team consists of all project developers who have push access or technical rights (Write permissions to a Project's GitHub repository, or access to the Project's servers) to the project's repositories or infrastructure.
Additionally, these two sections also sound contradictory:
This document is not:
- Intended to enforce rules on all members.
and
All members of the team (even the Steering Council!) are to be held to these rules
wintry abyss
The document isn't the method of enforcing the rules, it just says what the gist of the rules are
opaque badger
Do I need to read through and give a thumbs up?
dusky pumice
yes please
opaque badger
from a single read through, it looks fine to me
amber garnet
@earnest anvil please answer my questions in the PR. I don't understand why you're against the Contributors covenant. it's a common standard, and i think it's quite sufficient for our purposes. Not having something is unacceptable. The contridiction you discuss, i can't see it at all. you're going to have to ELI5.
olive hamlet
The contributor covenant is pretty intentional about not being political beyond the bare minimum "don't be a dick" sort of stuff that nowadays is considered political. Heck, the complaints you're most likely to see about it are that it does that too much. I'm not sure what would be considered "politically contentious" in it, or in the FAQ
wispy merlin
I took a peek at the contributor covenant. I don't think it's better than the one I wrote but also not worse so no complaints :P
amber garnet
it has the benefit of being a well understood document
olive hamlet
My only complaint is what I've already expressed, that it's not explicit enough about considering actions outside of community spaces being something moderation could consider if necessary, but in the grand scheme of things that's really not a big issue at all, and is the sort of thing where you can always say "it's nonexhaustive and 'dont be a nazi on Twitter' is implied"
olive hamlet
it has the benefit of being a well understood document
Especially because this is a huge advantage
dusky pumice
Hey @wintry abyss, merge time?
wintry abyss
do you have any idea how it'd look if i merge it? lol
zinc stratus
want me to merge it :P
dusky pumice
Doesn't matter IMO?
zinc stratus
I am kind to my subjects
dusky pumice
someone please hit the green button 😭
amber garnet
me
wintry abyss
dang it. i need to go sort my cat out. if governance is merged when i get back, i have a nice phat to-do list to go through right now :D
amber garnet
it's merged 😛
dusky pumice
🎉
wintry abyss
and the icon if you can find the original lol
dusky pumice
Celebration
wintry abyss
going to sort my cat out and get stuff done
bold palm
kink
amber garnet
kink
wintry abyss
yeh. also gonna write a nice fat announcement explaining the governance, that we're opening team applications, and how we're gonna do stuff going forward
olive hamlet
🎉
amber garnet
we need to do the website theme 😦
wintry abyss
then make 2 new channels, then add tech to the team, then start doling out new responsibilities
dusky pumice
gonna have to name some subproject leaders too 
wintry abyss
Yeah, that's doling out new responsibilities :P
zinc stratus
good good my worker bees are doing their jobs
olive hamlet
See: #squirrels-🦊 message
TL;DR should probably clarify that the council doesn't just keep growing - or if it does, clarify the odd number and how many people you elect bit
calm citrus
when will the first round of applications be assessed?
wintry abyss
It's gonna be a couple of days before we start, to allow everyone the ability to submit
So probably not in time for 1.20.2 release
icy dawn
Brief notes on the member application process:
Applying to Neo
To be admitted as a team member to Neo, one must first apply to the relevant position. Applications are done through https://links.neoforged.net/apply
Applications will be directed to an internal discussion channel, where team members will decide their fate™️
Applications will stay open until such time a consensus is formed or the discussion goes stale, after which a decision will be made based on the votes cast.
Any Team Member may place one of the following votes on any application:
✅ (+2) = I already trust this person, and think they would be a great match.
👍 (+1) = I approve of this person joining based on the given context.
🤷♂️ (0) = I cannot infer any judgement from the given context.
👎 (-1) = I don't think this person is a good match based on the given context.
🚫 (-2) = I distrust this person and think they would be a poor match.
🔥 (-999) = I cannot work with this person under any circumstance. Use only if there are irreconcilable differences.
dusky pumice
ideally it would be a discussion rather than purely a vote
of course looking at the reactions helps understanding the general feeling
scarlet tree
will I be sent to prison if I get the 👎 ? 😛
calm citrus
whats the current state for my application?
wispy merlin
it's there and people are free to comment on it and vote
the actual votes wouldn't be fair to say in public
imagine I say everyone was positive, but someone from the team pops in after and goes "oh that schurli dude? no way, big 🔥 from me"
scarlet tree
opaque badger
why is "fire" vote a thing??
if two people can't work together they should work it out and that shouldn't prevent a new member from joining
light ingot
while I would tentatively agree, it's not that simple, you have to remember that this is mc modding and opinions are very... exagerated
conflicts easily escalate to damaging situations
opaque badger
this is stupid. one fire vote and a person is guaranteed to not get in?
scarlet tree
yeah I think that's pretty silly but I'd expect it to only be used if you can give REALLY good reasons for it
light ingot
it's not like that vote is a wildcard you can draw for no reason
dusky pumice
well I think the whole enforced algorithm is suboptimal
light ingot
you're obviously expected to reason it
opaque badger
I do not like the idea of this. it means you're picking a stance by who you choose to keep and not let in, and solely based on "who was here first" type thing
light ingot
"this person said that they don't like a pixel in my mod" isn't valid, "this person spent months harassing me" is
earnest anvil
I personally treat it as an indicator rather than a vote that overrules everyone else
opaque badger
there is no point for it to be an emoji worth -999. it shouldn't be even mentioned as an option. it should just be voiced as necessary
light ingot
if you pull a "fire" vote and explain it, it's more than likely that everyone will see how bad it is and immediately go "no"
earnest anvil
Just because you can't work with one person in a team doesn't necessarily mean you would have to work with them if they joined
light ingot
the end result is the same imo
dense tulip
there is no point for it to be an emoji worth -999. it shouldn't be even mention...
Note the whole thing is more of a rough guide rather than set in stone procedure, the points are honestly not necessary
light ingot
the -999 looks like a joke to me lol
I'm more than certain it is
(the number that is)
scarlet tree
You should probably mention that the points are just rough guides for how strongly you feel rather than a set-in-stone thing
dense tulip
The 🔥 is practically a Veto, it's meant to be used in exceptionally circumstances, its a "I have severe issues with this, hold the boat"
At least that's the rough sense I got when this was quickly put together
scarlet tree
Honestly, considering that there's already a discussion period, you could probably do a simple yay/nay when it comes to the voting period
Unless you're trying to suggest that the voting/discussion happens in parallel and people can change their opinions until some period of time has passed
earnest anvil
Yes/No/Indifferent
wintry abyss
That's how it works Monica, yes
People have conflicting timetables, it's all asynchronous
scarlet tree
Understandable
It wasn't 100% clear 😅
In any case, I would recommend against an indifferent vote; from experience it ends up that most people vote "indifferent" other than people who have strong opinions either way
wintry abyss
Mostly indifferent votes ends up being an accepted
So that we can give the most people as possible the opportunity
scarlet tree
Yeah, if you're assigning scores it should be "soft yes", "hard yes", and "no"
I believe the formula servers I've been in end up using are +1, +0.5 and -1
and then it's left up to discussion to discuss the "hold on this has some major problems" issues
wintry abyss
Realistically, most of the people currently on the team have had "I haven't worked with them enough to say yes, and their interactions with the community thus far have been immature", which means we never end up giving those people the opportunity (or reason) to mature up and take their roles properly
A system like that would have denied almost all of our current team
And our current team is really good
So I'm in the notion to say a system like that is unsuitable for us.
scarlet tree
The idea being that the "meh" votes tend to lean towards accepting them, rather than disadvantaging them
wintry abyss
That's how it currently works.
scarlet tree
That's fair; it's just that the way it's communicated seems to suggest that it would actually tend to disadvantage them
wintry abyss
We explicitly didn't want to formalise every aspect and clear up every potential interpretation of the voting process
Because that takes time away from voting 😅
scarlet tree
I understand 😅
I've had the same discussion for hours on end in other servers trying to find a good middle ground between communicating our intentions vs the reality of the situation
wintry abyss
Yeah, our middle ground is "they'll get the gist, let's just get it done" :P
scarlet tree
Ah, actually I'm looking at the history and it turns out I'm wrong; what ended up being enacted was a "yes", "no" and "hell no" system where the rule is yes votes need to outweigh the no votes, and the "hell no" needs to be accompanied by a solid reason given for it - if that reason isn't accepted (so like, "this person said my pixel looked ugly :(") then it just counts as a regular no
(The system I suggested was an alternative proposal that didn't end up being enacted)
Of course, that's more suited for a community discord server rather than becoming a team member, but I wanted to suggest it as it's something I've already debated at length 😅
wispy merlin
if two people can't work together they should work it out and that shouldn't pre...
I get the feeling, but in practice, I don't agree with the solution being "talk it out". There's cases where the only valid solution is for two people to stay away from each other to ensure that one (or both) can remain safe. In those cases, of which the rest of the team may not know about, or know the details about, accepting the applicant through majority may result in the existing team member being forced to leave the team. Just on that basis, I believe it is necessary for that option to exist.
However, I should note I don't see it as a "veto" in the sense that the application is immediately cancelled, but rather it halts the application process (temporarily) until it's resolved. IMO that vote has 3 possible resolutions:
- the team may be convinced to switch their votes to being against the applicant (and ultimately reject the application),
- the team member that voted 🔥 may be convinced to remove the vote (and allow the application to be approved), or
- the team could decide the team member is being unreasonably antagonistic and decide that the wellbeing of the project and the community requires removing this team member from the team (which would void the vote, and allows the remaining opinions to be accounted for)
I do not expect the situation to actually arise, where the rest of the team would have approved an application but one of the people has such a strong issue that requires this vote, but I do think it's good to have it because sometimes people don't get along, and sometimes people are really really nasty to others.
(which is why I suggested having that option)
olive hamlet
If people really don't get along to that degree, I'd question why either of them are on the team
Or, well, at least the one expressing the opinion and possibly the other one too depending on the specifics of the situation
wispy merlin
so suppose a kinda worst case scenario: the person applying is a stalker of someone on the team
you are suggesting that the person on the team should be kicked for having an irreconcilable issue with them?
olive hamlet
No, obviously it's situational. I had assumed that in this theoretical scenario where everyone else approves the person that the issue is some interpersonal disagreement, not that sort of thing, but that's a good point - though I'd assume that with that sort of information I mind other people wouldn't be approving the individual in question, but perhaps I'm wrong
wispy merlin
yeah, that's the purpose IMO. there's many cases like that which people may not be very happy to talk about so they may just not have mentioned in the past
olive hamlet
I'm just not sure it makes sense for it to be part of the voting process like that. It seems like something that would be resolved externally to the vote either way
Because the vote should only happen after discussion has had a chance to go on, right?
wispy merlin
yeah, instead of 🔥 it could instead be ⏸️
olive hamlet
So that sort of "fuck no, I'm not working with this person" stuff should have come up during discussion
wispy merlin
it would mean the same: there's something that means this vote cannot continue until we find a resolution
olive hamlet
yeah, instead of 🔥 it could instead be ⏸️
So just a "more discussion needed" vote? That's not a bad idea
Yeah, okay, when framed that way that makes perfect sense to me
wispy merlin
that's how I see it: there's reasons why this person may not be compatible with my continued stay in the team, please see discussion before continuing with the approval