NixOS Foundation - Public Room Timeline

	NixOS Foundation	484 Members
	Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board	123 Servers

Load older messages

Sender	Message	Time
13 Mar 2024
Manu [tennox]	They is not saying "go away" they are saying "I have heard you and I don't have time"	19:26:28
Manu [tennox]	* They are not saying "go away" they are saying "I have heard you and I don't have time"	19:26:39
delroth	In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town Manu [tennox]: the problem with "letting the dust settle and letting things move" - as I intended to do above, actually - is that it requires for there to be some sort of signal that the feedback has been received and will be taken into consideration seriously. the reason people are angry is because it is abundantly clear that that is not actually happening to be maybe even more clear: it's not that there is no signal that the feedback was received, it's that there was signal that the feedback would be ignored: the foundation board explicitly said they'd follow an unapproved policy which goes against the community's outcry in Sept 2023 (and written by someone with imo a clear conflict of interest), and the foundation chair explicitly said they're uninterested in having any kind of policy past checking if a sponsor is legal	19:26:53
@joepie91:pixie.town	yeah, fair, that is probably a better summary	19:27:15
ronef	Again thank you for that summary as it helps clarify how I perceive the feeling being on your end	19:27:49
Manu [tennox]	Damn. That sucks!	19:28:27
@joepie91:pixie.town	that they don't have time is not really a credible thing in this case, because this exact scenario happened last time	19:29:26
@ultranix:matrix.org	In reply to @delroth:delroth.net to be maybe even more clear: it's not that there is no signal that the feedback was received, it's that there was signal that the feedback would be ignored: the foundation board explicitly said they'd follow an unapproved policy which goes against the community's outcry in Sept 2023 (and written by someone with imo a clear conflict of interest), and the foundation chair explicitly said they're uninterested in having any kind of policy past checking if a sponsor is legal Is there some policy pertaining to the petition that was proposed after Sept 2023, besides tomberek 's?	19:29:28
@joepie91:pixie.town	and so they've had every opportunity to see this coming and prepare for it, and chose not to	19:29:41
ronef	I left the meeting today feeling that the direction was open to define a policy that we can all agree to. I believed I tried to portray that but that doesn't cancel at all the feelings anyone left with.	19:29:53
ronef	I personally have a bias towards bottom up decision making, but I did hear mentions during the conversation that made me think more about that.	19:30:52
	@phileas:asra.gr joined the room.	19:31:35
@joepie91:pixie.town	In reply to @ronef:matrix.org I left the meeting today feeling that the direction was open to define a policy that we can all agree to. I believed I tried to portray that but that doesn't cancel at all the feelings anyone left with. can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot	19:32:08
delroth	In reply to @ultranix:matrix.org Is there some policy pertaining to the petition that was proposed after Sept 2023, besides tomberek 's? no, all we had was a precedent of an Anduril sponsorship being seen as undesirable by many contributors, which seem to have been forgotten in the proposed policy draft	19:35:23
delroth	sponsoring policy proposal: not Anduril; other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo	19:36:11
delroth	since apparently we need to make concrete policy proposals	19:36:29
@ultranix:matrix.org	In reply to @delroth:delroth.net since apparently we need to make concrete policy proposals that would definitely be a start I think. tomberek put the initial work in and there hasn't been any responses or followups by anyone until a few days ago	19:49:29
delroth	there's a reason why we have the FCP for RFCs	19:50:02
ronef	Side note for transparency, I'm going to be back in 2.5 hours. I've taken a one year course called "Touchy Feely" (Back in the end of September). I'd love to share if anyone is interested but that's a totally different thread.	19:50:05
delroth	nobody was expecting this proposal to be ever considered final/usable	19:50:15
[0x4A6F]	In reply to @delroth:delroth.net sponsoring policy proposal: not Anduril; other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo We abstain from Sponsors who glorify violence pornographic sites extremist sites Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them	19:50:17
@piegames:matrix.org	Pornographic sites is oddly specific but I guess	19:52:01
[0x4A6F]	We shouldn't probhibit our one presence due to Youth protection constrains.	19:52:10
[0x4A6F]	In reply to @delroth:delroth.net sponsoring policy proposal: not Anduril; other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo * We abstain from Sponsors who glorify violence pornographic sites extremist sites Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them	19:52:47
@piegames:matrix.org	I mean obviously not going to have that debate but it would be funny though	19:52:53
@joepie91:pixie.town	given that there is no commitment yet to even considering policy changes, it seems premature to start debating over the exact exclusion list	19:52:59
@joepie91:pixie.town	In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot I would really like an answer to this question, to that en	19:53:32
@joepie91:pixie.town	In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot * I would really like an answer to this question, to that end	19:53:33
[0x4A6F]	Yeah, I had a mockup with some of that sites as sponsors for theroretical NixCon sponsorship page. But no...	19:53:50
@piegames:matrix.org	In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town given that there is no commitment yet to even considering policy changes, it seems premature to start debating over the exact exclusion list Sinilarly, we would also discuss the processes which will govern sponsorship selection, regardless of established policies	19:54:29

Show newer messages

Back to Room ListRoom Version: 10