This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
- # admin-announcements (1)
- # alternate-reality (2)
- # beginners (15)
- # boot (309)
- # cbus (1)
- # cider (4)
- # cljs-dev (4)
- # clojure (199)
- # clojure-madison (5)
- # clojure-russia (14)
- # clojurescript (59)
- # community-development (57)
- # core-async (5)
- # cursive (8)
- # datavis (6)
- # datomic (1)
- # dysphemism (11)
- # emacs (5)
- # euroclojure (1)
- # hoplon (3)
- # off-topic (103)
- # om (52)
- # onyx (3)
- # parinfer (1)
- # proton (15)
- # reagent (4)
I think that if we should have any meaningful discussions we should refrain from speaking "absolute" values (I mean something like "all apples are bad" etc.) because this introduces nothing, and is always unfair to a group of people.
I respect your opinion but I don’t think we should be having meaningful discussions here at all outside of what’s going to make Clojure better. It’s a bloody programming language and not a catalyst for social change. That’s an entirely different beast which should and must be tackled but I simply don’t think this is the forum for it. What occurred here over the past few days is simply demonstrative of that. Those are important discussions which must be had and I’ll do whatever I can to support a con where that is the goal and we should have that con and we should have that goal. But this is just a Slack where we’re mostly terrified that we’re going to get shut down simply because Clojure is a really good programming language, and it attracts really smart and curious people, and we’re all a little nervous, and, and, and, and…
Yeah, I’m done. I could go on but I don’t think it’s warranted. It may be an opinion that’s unpopular but, hey, it’s how I roll.
Yes, as a member of the admin team I would strongly advise sticking to technical discussions on the Clojurians Slack — and this channel was originally intended for evaluation of possible alternatives to Slack and discussion of what this community needs from a software tool/service in order to continue to communicate.
Hey, @seancorfield, now that I know you’re around, I don’t think #C03RZGPG1 should be called that when we also have an #C06MAR553 channel because now people are using #C03RZGPG1 to do what #C06MAR553 was supposed to do. Not sure of the best solution but I’m seriously thinking that #C03RZGPG1 should be renamed #do-not-under-any-circumstances-type-anything-in-here-ever. But that might be because I’m feeling kind of fussy right now.
Interesting. I didn’t even know #C06MAR553 existed — and it only has 239 members? Not much of an announcements venue. So far I haven’t felt the announcements in the #C03RZGPG1 channel have been too much of a problem — certainly better than when it was #general and folks conducted all sorts of chatter there — but I’ll raise this with the rest of the Admin team and see what they think… You definitely have a point!
@akiva and I fully agree with you that there are better places for this, but Code of Conduct was introduced and discussion about it started to unravel and this were just my two cents about topic. But yeah I would rather use this slack for discussions about Clojure, functional programming etc.
The Code of Conduct has been in place from the beginning and is the basis on which this Slack was established and intended to be run.
Folks who do not wish to abide by the Code of Conduct should consider using a different space for discussions that would run counter to the intent of the Code of Conduct.
Not to drive this further but I also think that people should be allowed a certain leeway to be angry or offended or whatever. A Code of Conduct should never curtail, in my opinion, the ability of people to kind of go toe-to-toe as long as respect and compassion are present.
I think that a community system which needs "admins" who have power over the discussions being allowed or not allowed is problematic at best. I think it is as important for the individuals to filter their content so that they can get rid of people who trigger them.
But as a member of this community, I’ll fully support and go where the overall opinion is. I just think that dissent can be valuable.
That is something Slack does not do and does not intend to do, and it is something that IRC does very well, because the users have control over what they want to see.
@hans, I agree with that as well but every group needs leaders or admins or people who at least take care of the back-end.
IRC is not very user friendly, which is why Slack is so successful.
Right. Slack has a specific purpose, though: It is designed for groups that are forced to work together, not for creating spaces for random people.
Not at all. It is a proprietary system that gives the user exactly the control over the content that the Slack corporation chooses to grant them. Mind you, I'm not saying Slack is bad, it is just not the right tool for an open community.
If you like the way IRC operates and you do not like the Code of Conduct here, please stick to IRC. I’m sorry, but this really isn’t up for debate at this point. This Slack was created by people who believe strongly in spaces governed by a Code of Conduct and that is the way they want it to operate — and other admins have joined that team who share that belief / feeling.
And that’s for @hans, not @seancorfield.
@seancorfield: With no word have I said anything against a CoC.
The various Clojure conferences are also governed by a Code of Conduct and some of the discussions here recently would be equally inappropriate at those conferences.
@seancorfield: I have just said that even though a CoC may govern discussions and define what is unacceptable to the community as a whole, together with sanctions, it can not replace user control over what the individual choses to see.
And I would certainly love a Slack feature that let me mute individuals, yes.
@seancorfield: Right, but Slack is not likely to implement that because Slack only tolerates us.
(interestingly, Randi Lee Harper just posted a bit of a rant on Medium about Twitter’s poor user controls in this area — and makes a lot of good points about just how much control people really do need and how little most communication media provides)
What I was on about originally is that there’s a culture issue which must be addressed but that is beyond what this is about.
So, since Slack doesn’t provide such user controls, the Admins are here to try to ensure users shouldn’t need such controls and that this tries to be a "safe space" as much as is reasonably possible.
Yeah, I don’t necessarily jive with her entirely and I’ve read some pretty negative stuff but she’s on point when it comes to how Twitter has failed massively to protect people.
@seancorfield: I'm pretty happy with what the admins do here, thanks for that!
These things happen. People are people regardless of a CoC or not and you can say maybe someone went a little too far or didn’t go far enough and what’s most important is that in the aftermath of flare-ups we can all sit down and talk about it and not just point to something and say ‘shut up’. Not that anyone is, mind you. But a CoC should never be a gag order.
What I’m also saying is that I have a roast in the crock pot and if you guys could smell what I’m smelling? You’d be breaking down my door.
(Luckily I just ate so I can resist the tempting small of your roast!)
I am not so lucky. I have to wait another three hours and also roast some potatoes and sauté some green beans. LIFE IS HARD/AWESOME
And how about
admin-announcements as a replacement name @seancorfield
@meow: I’ll mention that as a possibility to the other Admins and see what they think...