| 13 Mar 2024 |
 K. Werty | * Anyway, I DO consider fighting against the (nearly complete) normalization of the military industrial complex to be constructive, so I respectfully disagree with the statement that calling it unacceptable is non-constructive. Although I do acknowledge that I said it in a possibly snarky way. | 18:52:25 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | even if I understand the desire to do so | 18:52:28 |
 patka | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
and so a more helpful conversation would be what to do next I have no idea to be honest. It's not like the foundation will do anything in this room. So good question. | 18:52:43 |
 delroth | * frankly nobody here cares about trying to convince you of why they don't want Anduril to sponsor Nix* | 18:52:57 |
| delroth | which means that any policy which does not include that fact into account is a bad policy | 18:53:06 |
 tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
and I'm not sure why you'd need to be convinced of it to accept the fact that, again, 100+ contributors do not want Anduril sponsoring Nix* 100+ contributors to a petition, I dont know how many of those are actual contributors. and 100 out of how many people using nix? | 18:53:16 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I mean, I'm hoping that Foundation folks will at least address the question of their legal obligations. it seems much preferable to sort that out informally here, as opposed to through a legal procedure | 18:53:32 |
| delroth | they represent > 25% of all contributions to nixpkgs since 2022, are you not reading the discussions before replying? | 18:53:50 |
| delroth | and that's within 24h, and only contributors who explicitly decided to take an action to sign the open letter | 18:54:27 |
 piegames | tgunnoe: this is currently a discussion by people who don't want Anduril as a sponsor about what to do with the situation. This is not the correct place to derail this into the same discussion about that you are personally in favor of Anduril | 18:54:27 |
| tgunnoe | so 75% did not sign you're saying? | 18:54:29 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (and they may need some time for that) | 18:54:54 |
| piegames | tgunnoe stop it | 18:55:06 |
| tgunnoe | I'm just trying to help with a larger outlook and positive view of the outcome | 18:57:32 |
| delroth | I hope that with the amount of questions and comments that were addressed directly to the foundation on the #foundation matrix room we won't have comments next time about a "communication breakdown", and board members being "disappointed" that people write open letters to communicate with them (when in fact it's just that the foundation isn't replying otherwise) | 18:57:38 |
| K. Werty | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
and so a more helpful conversation would be what to do next Maybe, a survey of the folks that signed the letter, asking something along the lines of "is this a big enough deal to you to stop contributing to the project and/or maintaining your contributions". I suspect the answer is "yes" for a significant number of people, which may help to quantify the cost of the anduril decision. | 19:00:49 |
| piegames | No, you are disrupting the conversation with bad faith arguments and concern trolling. And this is a common pattern I see in your interactions, and this has been going on for months now | 19:02:33 |
| patka | It shouldn't become a numbers game, a new petition will just water everything down. The current people walking away that signed already will completely wreck everything (I mean in the sense that stuff will break, not actively destroyed...) | 19:03:05 |
 Arian | Tom did explicitly ask for feedback on the policy explicitly and nobody gave any | 19:04:02 |
| Arian | If there is no feedback then there can't be any progress. 🤷. It wasn't obscure. He shared the link to the policy in the channels where we discussed stuff in the aftermath of NixCon EU | 19:05:28 |
| Arian | I remember him sharing it | 19:05:42 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @patka_123:matrix.org
It shouldn't become a numbers game, a new petition will just water everything down. The current people walking away that signed already will completely wreck everything (I mean in the sense that stuff will break, not actively destroyed...) this, since delroth already dropped their ssh key from the infra stuff we basically only have two people maintaining infra, and one of the two people also singed the letter. | 19:06:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | patka: in terms of what to do next: I do also think it would be a good idea to start thinking about a plan B (or C?), in case the Foundation sticks with their current stance, and legal action is not viable for one reason or another | 19:06:46 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | was the outrage after NixCon EU not enough feedback? | 19:08:54 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * was the outrage after NixCon EU not enough feedback to make the point clear? | 19:09:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | because if you've just had half a riot on your hands concerning a decision you've made, then asking "what do you think about it" again in a different place sure feels a lot like "keep asking until people forget to say no" | 19:10:00 |
| patka | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
If there is no feedback then there can't be any progress. 🤷. It wasn't obscure. He shared the link to the policy in the channels where we discussed stuff in the aftermath of NixCon EU That seems very weird. I wasn't contributing during NixCon EU. And if there was no feedback and it is not merged, then why is it used at all? | 19:10:50 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Can everyone please cool down a little? Half on us are giving help with the last minute préparions of a conference, so yes, we're quite unresponsive right now. My most immediate problem right now is to help the Scale team netboot a cluster of raspis with tftp over IPv6. If you know how to do that, you're welcome to help. | 19:12:16 |
| delroth | wow. | 19:13:02 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the same conference that again accepted the same problematic sponsor that was at issue last time, which was then also responded to with "we're busy right now, will respond later"? that one? | 19:13:12 |
