| 12 Mar 2024 |
 ronef | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/community-calendar/18589/119?u=ron | 22:23:51 |
| 14 Mar 2024 |
|  @federicodschonborn:matrix.org left the room. | 02:04:29 |
|  @paultrial:banditlair.com left the room. | 07:55:42 |
 @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk | can anyone summarize what was discussed during the open board call re: nixcon? | 13:06:20 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | There is a protocol in a pad somewhere | 13:25:47 |
 tomberek | Notes from open call: https://pad.lassul.us/s/tFgKSIyaG | 14:05:44 |
|  NixOS Moderation Botchanged room power levels. | 18:44:20 |
| 15 Mar 2024 |
| ronef | FYI - One of the action items was to update the sponsorship tiers to reflect current reality. I added that on the discourse.
copying here as well:
We will not have promo videos.
We will not have logo on screens during breaks
Some sponsors are not shown on mechanicals around the conference area | 00:04:50 |
| ronef | 
Download image.png | 00:06:42 |
| ronef | For reference what a mechanical is, it's the physical signs | 00:06:45 |
|  Colin joined the room. | 02:30:47 |
|  spacesbot - keeps a log of public NixOS channels joined the room. | 04:05:57 |
| spacesbot - keeps a log of public NixOS channels | 05:00:17 |
| @federicodschonborn:matrix.org joined the room. | 14:27:05 |
| 18 Mar 2024 |
| tomberek | Submitted an update to the proposed policy: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/110#issuecomment-2002915462 | 04:39:11 |
| Colin | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
Submitted an update to the proposed policy: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/110#issuecomment-2002915462 thanks, left a short reply there trying to clarify some of the distinctions around "endorsement"/"sponsorship"/"advertisement". wasn't sure the best venue for that discussion: happy to move it here if you prefer. | 05:58:56 |
| tomberek | This thread is fine to discuss, but we should write any conclusions back into the issue.
Of the material benefits mentioned, I think the most relevant+valuable you mention is that of having a booth. Things like logo placement are common with donations as well (see our Open Collective); these are not really advertising, it would be more accurate to say it is acknowledgment, a thank you. I highly doubt companies go around donating to various funds due to the high advertising value of logo placements on such thank-you webpages or conference brochures. The positive messaging is the first component mentioned; this is far more applicable to something usually called "partnerships", a closer relationship that can imply endorsement and a shared vision.
This is how I view these distinctions. I do understand the desire not to endorse; and I don't see necessarily see any happening. | 06:23:07 |
| Colin | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
Submitted an update to the proposed policy: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/110#issuecomment-2002915462 * thanks, left a short reply there trying to clarify some of the distinctions around "endorsement"/"sponsorship"/"advertisement". wasn't sure the best venue for that discussion: happy to move it here if you prefer (edit: aw, shoot: meant to copy it here, but accidentally just deleted it. don't have to energy to recreate it right now.)
| 07:17:31 |
| 19 Mar 2024 |
| NixOS Moderation Botchanged room power levels. | 00:29:47 |
| ronef | Just a reminder that tomorrow is the open board call regarding the sponsorship discussion - https://discourse.nixos.org/t/community-calendar/18589/118?u=ron
I put a few agenda items here but feel free to add and we will have free form https://pad.lassul.us/Y2uJQWJkRr6Hcz6-s3YkDg | 21:37:14 |
| 20 Mar 2024 |
| tomberek | Colin: I've added additional details to the issue | 02:22:46 |
| Colin | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
Colin: I've added additional details to the issue already left a reply | 02:23:26 |
| Colin | i made it as succinct as i possibly could. i'm really hoping we can agree on just this one fact, in isolation of what to do about it.
| 02:27:51 |
| tomberek | The litmus test; socially and legally, it would work and be consistent, though I don't recommend it as a policy.
The legal and social distinctions between these activities are made precisely because of the potential for miscommunication, fraud, conflicts of interest, and various moral hazards. What we see various policy makers do is establish a way for sponsorships to stay on the right side of the line. If we err too far over, yes, we should correct for the benefits we offer. If they are of too high value, or violate these social and legal conventions, we should adjust. | 02:33:15 |
| Colin | i, too, don't recommend we delete all sponsorship and accept only anonymous donations: just to be clear. | 02:35:31 |
| tomberek | Anonymous donations come with another problem: now you don't have transparency, or a chance to even understand who is in a position to influence unduly.
At least with disclosure, people are informed and can make their own decisions. | 02:35:44 |
| Colin | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
The litmus test; socially and legally, it would work and be consistent, though I don't recommend it as a policy.
The legal and social distinctions between these activities are made precisely because of the potential for miscommunication, fraud, conflicts of interest, and various moral hazards. What we see various policy makers do is establish a way for sponsorships to stay on the right side of the line. If we err too far over, yes, we should correct for the benefits we offer. If they are of too high value, or violate these social and legal conventions, we should adjust. i might understand your desire to "bucket" things cleanly into advertisement v.s. sponsorship though. | 02:40:27 |
| Colin | it might help to order these buckets based on (some vague measure of) the value they provide the other party. like, advertising < sponsorship < endorsement, and then try to figure out (or place) the more precise boundaries from there. | 02:47:42 |
| Colin | if it's actually sponsorship < advertising, say, then the whole thing seems kinda moot: the classifications wouldn't matter if even the lowest tier was already controversial. | 02:48:46 |
| Colin | * | 02:49:00 |
