| 10 Jan 2025 |
 Jorge | Well. With that framing, Yes would be "doing" something: granting an exception. | 22:44:54 |
 3wc ~ they/them | precisely | 22:45:00 |
 flancian 🍄 | snapshot of the first vote -- I think it's very likely to pass comfortably | 22:47:08 |
| flancian 🍄 | 
Download 2025-01-10T23:43:46,691125795+01:00.png | 22:47:12 |
| Jorge | I find it ironic that the "for clarity" note has to resort to the same framing that flancian had proposed. | 22:47:28 |
| flancian 🍄 | the second looks similar although with lower numbers for now because it started later | 22:47:37 |
| flancian 🍄 | I think the difference will be academic, maybe it's worth adding something to the template we use about framings? | 22:48:15 |
| flancian 🍄 | * the second looks similar (inverted) although with lower numbers for now because it started later | 22:48:30 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | happy to help work on some language about that. in my experience the importance of thinking about the meaning of "block" votes is definitely not obvious to folks coming from processes which don't have them | 22:51:38 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | (random aside: the quaker consensus process, on which our and other consensus processes are based, doesn't have a "block" vote either) | 22:52:21 |
| Jorge | I'm trying to find the "federation abuse policy" this is supposed to be an exception to, but I'm not familiar with our documentation yet. Could it be linked in the second vote? Or is it there already and I missed it? | 22:57:46 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | sorry, it was in the draft but didn't copy paste correctly. adding now. https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Federation_abuse_policy | 22:58:38 |
| Jorge | Thanks a lot! | 22:59:11 |
 edsu | I'm not a fan of the dueling votes. | 23:15:15 |
 Evan Boehs | The latter one is blocked to death | 23:15:53 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | me neither | 23:15:57 |
| Evan Boehs | I was curious to see how it played out but people were able to make sense of the chaos and it’s basically obvious at this point what the verdict will be | 23:16:34 |
| Evan Boehs | We should probably give another 16 or so hours in any case to accommodate people in all timezones | 23:16:57 |
| Evan Boehs | * We should probably give another 16 or so hours in any case to accommodate people in all timezones unless miraculously a majority is achieved | 23:17:22 |
| edsu | I think the vote are supposed to stay open for 6 days? https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Make_a_proposal | 23:18:29 |
| edsu | * I think the votes are supposed to stay open for 6 days? https://wiki.social.coop/wiki/Make_a_proposal | 23:18:37 |
| Evan Boehs | Hmm ok | 23:20:25 |
| Evan Boehs | * Hmm ok, can’t argue with that! | 23:20:52 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | i'm signing off for a while, will check back in a few hours to answer any other questions about my proposal or the reasoning for making it. great co-operating with you all as usual! 👋 | 23:27:14 |
| 11 Jan 2025 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | * if your efforts over the past months to convince people to vote "block" on defederation have had any success then your vote will be easily outweighed. | 00:10:39 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | * as i said in DM, I will take you on good faith that that was your conscious intention. I will also observe that your choice of framing has made it more likely that the vote would reach your desired outcome and placed the burden on more-marginalised people to advocate for ourselves to maintain our existing defences - and encourage you to consider what subconscious bias might also have been a factor in this choice | 03:07:20 |
| 3wc ~ they/them | * but in this case it is a bug because it is (again) having the the burden of cheerleading folks to not block placed on folks who want to maintain our existing standards, and folks can effectively use the (heavily-weighted) "block" option in order to create a radical change by default | 03:08:32 |
| flancian 🍄 | good morning! the first vote seems to be doing well: https://www.loomio.com/d/u1OkUA6M/clarity-on-stance-with-regards-to-threads/30 | 12:41:54 |
| flancian 🍄 | ~80% voted yes so far; 9% against, 11% abstain. 20% is significant but about what I expected. I think we should make plans to back up follow relationships so people who will lose connections know what they are; and ideally so we can restore these if we ever un-suspend (e.g. after Meta corrects, we can hope...) | 12:43:52 |
| flancian 🍄 | 20% is also significant enough that, if it holds, we should probably discuss as a community how exactly we go through enacting the suspend to make sure people don't lose significant data (as per the message above; but that is only one particular implementation plan). | 12:44:53 |
