| 11 Mar 2024 |
 Shalok Shalom | * I think the write up could also include that exact sum and implications on what is being sponsored | 21:44:34 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think a signatory letter to the board would be a viable idea. I'm more cautious about an open letter; this is a complex subject, where the majority of people is unlikely to have a lot of background understanding of the topic, and that means that if you try to basically play the numbers game, that can very easily backfire | 21:44:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | because we can do our best to explain the problem, but there is still only so much that you can get across in a few paragraphs | 21:45:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I think we can expect board members to take the time to understand the topic, with the letter as a guide; but that same expectation does not really fly for, say, random redditors | 21:46:01 |
 @ckie:ckie.dev | it's probably better if we everyone includes their relation to nix next to their name | 21:46:06 |
 [0x4A6F] | We might use a pad like https://pad.lassul.us/nixcon-sponsorship-statement# and see what develops from it. Then finish it off in and send it to foundations board or git-repo or whatever form we can come up with. | 21:46:58 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do think we need to know who we're sending it to, before writing it. write for the audience etc. | 21:47:54 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | that having been said, collaborative writing seems like a perfectly fine idea to me | 21:49:24 |
| Shalok Shalom | I suggest to ultimately also send it to the company Anduril itself, maybe framing it as an open letter. | 21:50:50 |
| Shalok Shalom | If they realize, that large parts of the community dont like their involvement, they might be not interested anymore in hosting it themselves. | 21:51:30 |
| [0x4A6F] | I rather not name a specific defense contractor, to not further promote their name! | 21:51:58 |
 @rhelmot:matrix.org | In reply to @shalokshalom:dendrite.matrix.org
I suggest to ultimately also send it to the company Anduril itself, maybe framing it as an open letter. I want to disagree with this strongly for the reasons that joepie pointed out, but also that trying to appeal to the conscience or feelings shall surely fail | 21:52:15 |
| Shalok Shalom | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I think a signatory letter to the board would be a viable idea. I'm more cautious about an open letter; this is a complex subject, where the majority of people is unlikely to have a lot of background understanding of the topic, and that means that if you try to basically play the numbers game, that can very easily backfire I think its unlikely, simply since the amount of people thinking an arms company funded by a Trump associative is a good deal, is probably very low in the tech space. This is not a very controversial stance, that we are taking. | 21:52:53 |
| Shalok Shalom | We can try a board letter first and then still reconsider. | 21:53:13 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | I do not share your confidence, unfortunately | 21:53:23 |
| Shalok Shalom | But I guess, we have already told the board, what we think. | 21:53:39 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | an important factor here is that Anduril publicly profiles itself as a tech startup, not as an arms dealer, and that is usually an effective moral cover in tech spaces | 21:54:02 |
 @arianvp:matrix.org | Anduril's founder Palmer also loves drama by the way. | 21:55:06 |
| @arianvp:matrix.org | He's very good at stirring the pot | 21:55:19 |
| Shalok Shalom | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I think we can expect board members to take the time to understand the topic, with the letter as a guide; but that same expectation does not really fly for, say, random redditors How is that topic not yet well understood? What is there left to understand? I think its more an issue of "we dont care" or that they are actively in favor of it. How is there a possible case of misunderstanding? | 21:55:20 |
| Shalok Shalom | Good to know. | 21:55:32 |
| Shalok Shalom | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
an important factor here is that Anduril publicly profiles itself as a tech startup, not as an arms dealer, and that is usually an effective moral cover in tech spaces Sounds like something that can be included in the letter. And I agree, that this might be an issue, at least if not proactively dealt with. | 21:56:38 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | In reply to @shalokshalom:dendrite.matrix.org
How is that topic not yet well understood? What is there left to understand? I think its more an issue of "we dont care" or that they are actively in favor of it. How is there a possible case of misunderstanding? to a lot of people in tech especially, the concept of "defense contractors" is an abstract concept at best. "they help us stay safe, right? and they fund a lot of good research" is a common response to concerns about them. likewise, as soon as a company calls itself a tech company, to many tech folks it is automatically exempt from moral consideration, because "this is tech, not politics, there's good and bad uses for every technology" etc.; the harsh reality is that a lot of people in tech simply do not share the premise that arms dealers are problematic, and do not know much (and don't want to know much) about what arms dealers actually do. in practice that's going to mean a lot of "surely it can't be that bad, you must be overreacting" responses when that worldview is threatened by claims of things being Bad, Actually | 21:58:36 |
|  @paultrial:banditlair.com joined the room. | 21:58:58 |
| Shalok Shalom | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
to a lot of people in tech especially, the concept of "defense contractors" is an abstract concept at best. "they help us stay safe, right? and they fund a lot of good research" is a common response to concerns about them. likewise, as soon as a company calls itself a tech company, to many tech folks it is automatically exempt from moral consideration, because "this is tech, not politics, there's good and bad uses for every technology" etc.; the harsh reality is that a lot of people in tech simply do not share the premise that arms dealers are problematic, and do not know much (and don't want to know much) about what arms dealers actually do. in practice that's going to mean a lot of "surely it can't be that bad, you must be overreacting" responses when that worldview is threatened by claims of things being Bad, Actually I think thats very much an US thing, then | 21:59:05 |
| @arianvp:matrix.org | by the way I'm in the camp i'm conflicted but not opposed to Anduril associating itself with NixOS. I have no problems with them using and contributing to nixos. Neither to them donating. However I have some reservations actively promoting them on e.g. a conference. I'm happy to proofread anything to give my perspective. If it convinced me it might have high chances convincing others too | 21:59:32 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it's definitely more prevalent in the US, but that does not mean that it is not going to be a problem in terms of public response | 21:59:50 |
| Shalok Shalom | Particulary in todays day and age, with the war in Ukraine and the ethical cleansing in Gaza, should that topic be not that opaque. | 22:00:27 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | it shouldn't, but it unfortunately is | 22:01:12 |
| Shalok Shalom | I dont know the polls around tech people, but even the public in the US sees these two conflicts critical, also in terms of arms contractors. | 22:01:10 |
