In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Yeah, does not shed a good light on the company either

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com

Can I maybe also clear some misunderstanding I see. I think there is a conflict in expectations of what is excepted from the board. There are largely two different models that I see.

1. One is that the foundation is in charge of the community, and makes decisions for the community. This is a more heavy handed approach.

2. The other one is that the foundation is in service to the community, and is more like a fiscal host, legal proxy, .. and would leave more of the decisions up to the community.

When the foundation says it doesn't want to be involved in this, I think it largely stems in wanting to be (2). Internally, the discussion we had is that no-military is a difficult criteria to apply since there is so many gradients in there, and we didn't feel equipped to deal with this.

I would like to dispel this idea that the foundation is pro military. I don't think this is what is happening.

Does that help a little bit?

members of the foundation have repeatedly indicated in the past that they intend for the foundation to be (2). however, in practice this cannot work - the foundation is (whether de jure or de facto) the organization with authoritative control over a number of important community functions, and with that comes an obligation to manage those functions responsibly. managing those function responsibly is impossible to do by "representing the community" because we do not have one homogeneous, morally-aligned community; there is no one single path for the foundation to follow.

which leads to the conclusion that "the foundation is merely a proxy" cannot actually work as designed, and trying to do so anyway has only one possible outcome: inaction and neglect, which is exactly what has happened.

so the foundation now needs to make one of two choices, and I want to emphasize that these are the only (binary) choices available, there are no middle roads:

1. either the foundation acknowledges its de facto position of authority, and accepts the obligations and responsibilities that come with that, including the making of decisions that safeguard the community according to some sort of defined ethical principles
2. or the foundation continues to try and implement a 'hands off' policy, in which case the community will fracture, and whoever does not hold the most general-audience influence (which generally are marginalized folks) will be forced to leave entirely

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com

Can I maybe also clear some misunderstanding I see. I think there is a conflict in expectations of what is excepted from the board. There are largely two different models that I see.

1. One is that the foundation is in charge of the community, and makes decisions for the community. This is a more heavy handed approach.

2. The other one is that the foundation is in service to the community, and is more like a fiscal host, legal proxy, .. and would leave more of the decisions up to the community.

When the foundation says it doesn't want to be involved in this, I think it largely stems in wanting to be (2). Internally, the discussion we had is that no-military is a difficult criteria to apply since there is so many gradients in there, and we didn't feel equipped to deal with this.

I would like to dispel this idea that the foundation is pro military. I don't think this is what is happening.

Does that help a little bit?

members of the foundation have repeatedly indicated in the past that they intend for the foundation to be (2). however, in practice this cannot work - the foundation is (whether de jure or de facto) the organization with authoritative control over a number of important community functions, and with that comes an obligation to manage those functions responsibly. managing those functions responsibly is impossible to do by "representing the community" because we do not have one homogeneous, morally-aligned community; there is no one single path for the foundation to follow.

which leads to the conclusion that "the foundation is merely a proxy" cannot actually work as designed, and trying to do so anyway has only one possible outcome: inaction and neglect, which is exactly what has happened.

so the foundation now needs to make one of two choices, and I want to emphasize that these are the only (binary) choices available, there are no middle roads:

1. either the foundation acknowledges its de facto position of authority, and accepts the obligations and responsibilities that come with that, including the making of decisions that safeguard the community according to some sort of defined ethical principles
2. or the foundation continues to try and implement a 'hands off' policy, in which case the community will fracture, and whoever does not hold the most general-audience influence (which generally are marginalized folks) will be forced to leave entirely