 | NixOS Foundation | 452 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 113 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 452 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 113 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 28 Apr 2024 | ||
 ronef | Morning, I'm sad to see folks declaring such a decentralized and resilient community/technology "dead", especially when my personal life has been 100% dedicated to working through this in the last few weeks. With that, I am very much on the opposite side of that spectrum. I believe that aleksana and others have put it very well. Nix isn't dying. Dying to me has almost an exact opposite definition. We are most definitely taking a hit, strong feelings everywhere, folks are leaving. While that is happening. I'm seeing one of the most passionate communities and individuals in the world step up. We care. This accounts for everything that is happening, including those raising the alarms and calling out the problems that need to be prioritized and solved. While personally it's a very difficult few weeks, I'm incredibly hopeful. Also my calendar and chats are always open and not just for feedback, but also to chat, as I can only imagine the feelings that folks might be feeling. | 15:46:05 |
 linex joined the room. | 15:52:26 | |
 vcunat | If anything, there's too much passion in some cases 🤣 | 15:59:59 |
| vcunat | * If anything, there's too much passion in some cases 🤣 | 16:00:07 |
| vcunat | * If anything, there's too much passion in some cases 🤣 | 16:00:15 |
 I use NixOS btw joined the room. | 17:21:41 | |
 nat-418 | I have been reading the by-laws of Stichting NixOS Foundation, and although I am not a lawyer, it appears to me the board of the foundation is hermetically sealed off from outside influence: board members are self-selecting, serve for an indefinite amount of time, and answer to none but themselves. This seems less conducive to building a healthy community than, for example, the "loi 1901" association for Guix which establishes the democratic election of board members every year, as well as mechanisms for open and collective decision making of a general agenda: https://foundation.guix.info/statutes/statuts-201602-en.pdf If I have misunderstood the by-laws, I welcome correction. | 20:53:44 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | this is fairly common for foundations in NL, for what it's worth, and not necessarily an unreasonable model when the effective governance scope is limited | 20:55:56 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | though depending on the specific circumstances, it can be less than ideal | 20:56:26 |
| vcunat | Democratic election? The community doesn't even have membership yet. | 20:57:39 |
| vcunat | * Democratic election? The NixOS community doesn't even have membership yet. | 20:57:52 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.orgLoi 1901 associations establish membership processes, &c. as linked above. | 20:58:14 |
| vcunat | I'm not saying that it's impossible. | 20:58:30 |
| vcunat | Just far from current reality. | 20:58:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | anyway, there are reasons why one might have a membership-driven foundation instead, but it's important to remember that it is not a magic band-aid for governance problems | 20:58:53 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townI am not claiming it is unusual for Dutch foundations. | 20:59:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | if your governance is not already in a healthy place when you institute such a model, it is very easy to have things get worse | 20:59:30 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.orgI think the current reality leaves something to be desired, namely, a meaningful relationship between the Foundation and the community. | 20:59:58 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org* I think the current reality leaves something to be desired, namely, a meaningful (i.e., not merely notional) relationship between the Foundation and the community. | 21:01:20 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townIf we had a loi 1901 association, contentious issues could be decisively settled by an absolute majority. There would be a clear mandate, direction, &c. not vague vibes and ressentiments. | 21:03:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | this is my day off so I am not going to have an extensive discussion about the dangers of majority rule | 21:03:38 |
 Arian | In reply to @nat-418:nat-418.xyzYes this is the definition of a foundation. The bylaws are the basic template that basically every foundation uses | 21:04:09 |
| Arian | I am repeating myself again. But we had an extensive discussion about Associations vs Foundation really recently. Please scroll up :) | 21:04:40 |
| vcunat | Majority rule wouldn't help our situation at all. I'm quite convinced of that. | 21:05:03 |
| vcunat | If you a have controversial topic, voting is divisive. You'd get a result, but you couldn't say that the community would get appeased by that. | 21:07:19 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.orgAs I understand it, today there is no real "community". It is merely notional, an abstract hypothetical of unknown persons. In a loi 1901 association, a definite and real body can make specific and actionable decisions. I would personally prefer to be on the losing side of a free and fair election than subject to unknown and mystifying machinations of unrelated social circles. | 21:14:46 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org* As I understand it, today there is no real "community". It is merely notional, an abstract hypothetical of unknown persons. In a loi 1901 association, a definite and real body can make specific and actionable decisions. I would personally prefer to be on the losing side of a free and fair election of my peers than subject to unknown and mystifying machinations of unrelated social circles. | 21:15:12 |
| nat-418 | And if majority rule is the problem, then demand unanimous consent. The point is not elections per se but a real community that can openly and freely organize. | 21:17:33 |