| 27 Apr 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | Arian: if someone makes a statement who is also a board member, that carries the weight of the board with it, whether they intend it to or not. that is how soft power works. | 13:10:36 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that is why "no duplicate hats" is necessary | 13:10:42 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net
I certainly can't say I know everything, but I can't remember ever seeing that (I've seen board members engaged in all kind of discussion ofc, but not using some magic board wand to veto anything). Do you have some example? there was a sponsorship policy draft and Eelco went and misrepresented the board by stating his own opinion and making it sound like that's the board decision. (that was in the open board call so I don't know if it is written down somewhere) | 13:10:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the separation between personal opinions and formal authority only exists on paper, it never actually works that way in reality | 13:11:21 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (and a good non-interference policy is designed to account for that) | 13:11:51 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.net
(if anything, the sponsorship situation was the foundation not opposing a veto to a team's decision) the sponsorship situation is an exceptional one, because it concerns "using the reputation of the project as a whole for something" (namely, endorsement of the sponsor) and this means that making that decision is not within the mandate of a conference team to begin with | 13:13:15 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that is also why people only expected a sponsorship policy for official events | 13:13:46 |
