| 11 Mar 2024 |
 joepie91 🏳️🌈 | * tomberek: note that many people cannot use threads on Matrix either due to client support or cognitive incompatibilities | 21:39:19 |
 rhelmot | Would anyone like to volunteer to write an initial draft of a statement and/or host it under their namespace? I would offer but I am very new to this community and worry about optics | 21:40:25 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | rhelmot: what sort of statement are you thinking of? | 21:41:14 |
| rhelmot | Something to summarize the community consensus and collect signatures in support of “do not do this” | 21:41:45 |
 Shalok Shalom | Do we talk about a statement about how the conclusion formed, to accept the second sponsorship, or a statement of the community, that we disagree with it? | 21:41:55 |
| Shalok Shalom | Ah, yeah. | 21:42:04 |
| joepie91 🏳️🌈 | rhelmot: would the intended recipient of this statement be the Foundation, the internet at large, something else? | 21:42:30 |
| Shalok Shalom | I think we should include the reasoning for the why as well, cause I still dont know that as an example and I have failed to read that in the above discussion | 21:42:38 |
| Shalok Shalom | or anywhere else, really. | 21:42:43 |
| rhelmot | I think the board members who have the ability to reverse the decision | 21:42:50 |
| Shalok Shalom | I think the write up could also include that exact sum and implications that is being sponsored | 21:43:45 |
| Shalok Shalom | So that people can form an informed opinion. | 21:43:52 |
| rhelmot | Yep | 21:44:00 |
| rhelmot |
- statement of facts
- ethical concerns
- statement of purpose
| 21:44:24 |
| 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 | 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 |
