| 11 Mar 2024 |
 mei 🌒& | (https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/110) | 21:08:57 |
 @mangoiv.:matrix.org | Put a space after the 110, fluffy chat will make the ) be part of the link otherwise 😅 | 21:09:46 |
| mei 🌒& | * ( https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/issues/110 ) | 21:09:56 |
| mei 🌒& | (: | 21:09:57 |
 Shalok Shalom | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
I would recommend against that assumption; especially on topics that involve vulnerable people and power dynamics, often the only people willing and able to call out an injustice are those who have very limited amounts of energy to spend on the matter. it is in everyone's interest to minimize the amount of energy necessary for these sorts of discussions I understand that point and see myself in such a position myself. I still see it as inevitable, that people can communicate and self-respect their own boundaries. | 21:10:55 |
| mei 🌒& | tomberek: when can we expect the Anduril sponsorship policy proposal and/or the proceeding matrix discussion to be published by the board? | 21:11:22 |
|  pbsds joined the room. | 21:11:23 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @shalokshalom:dendrite.matrix.org
I understand that point and see myself in such a position myself. I still see it as inevitable, that people can communicate and self-respect their own boundaries. the problem is not of self-respecting one's own boundaries, but rather that people literally do not have enough energy to deal with arbitrary amounts of discussing and arguing, and they never will. if they were to "respect their own boundaries", the net outcome would be that many topics never get raised at all, and they simply leave the community quietly. that is IMO not a desirable outcome | 21:12:02 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | an open discussion about the hard subjects requires making space and accommodations for those who find it more difficult to participate, and IMO that burden primarily rests on the shoulders of those for whom it is easy to participate | 21:12:50 |
| Shalok Shalom | https://github.com/atErik/PeaceOSL/blob/main/PeaceOSL.txt | 21:14:55 |
 tomberek |
- matrix discussion related to sponsorship policy: https://matrix.to/#/#nixcon-sponsor-discussion:nixos.org
- policy
| 21:15:54 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | @[Théophane] first of all, sorry for the ping. Second: will the open board discussion be the right place to discuss these things? If so it would be nice if you could officially put this on the agenda so that people interested in it, can participate. I hope that a discussion that is not lead via text leads to less misunderstandings and heatedness. | 21:17:47 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | In reply to @tomberek:matrix.org
- matrix discussion related to sponsorship policy: https://matrix.to/#/#nixcon-sponsor-discussion:nixos.org
- policy
Ouff that room what a shitshow. 😅 | 21:22:36 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | Most of it is from last year end of September though. It doesn’t really explain what was considered to approve Anduril under the current interim policy. Also please tell me if this goes to far or this is not the right time (place?) to ask for this. In that case I will patiently wait for that time to come. Hopefully before the next NixCon (not na) | 21:24:21 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Yes, that's absolutely the place.
We don't want to set a formal agenda, but if you're worried about it being forgotten (I'm not really ;) ), add a comment on the discourse thread so that it's set in stone | 21:25:51 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | Thank you! Im not worried it will be forgotten but much rather that the discoverabilty is not sufficient :3 | 21:27:13 |
| tomberek | The matrix discussion stalled, at which point I created a policy proposal which had very little traffic of commentary. The policy was never clarified and so I proceeded with my proposal.
The foundation meeting minutes imply they also considered my policy proposal as the mechanism. (I was not there, but that's how I read them).
The right time and place is to establish a policy for the foundation to adopt. I welcome any changes/updates/thoughts to improve it. | 21:31:30 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-foundation-board-open-board-meeting-2024-03-20/41209/2?u=mangoiv I hope that’s fine with you? | 21:32:27 |
| @mangoiv.:matrix.org | Alright. I guess that’s a yes and I can cross post it. | 21:37:09 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | That was a yes indeed | 21:39:17 |
| Shalok Shalom left the room. | 22:07:40 |
 samueldr | In reply to @samueldr:matrix.org
Given that the NixCon NA team goes against the precedent from taking a specific controversial sponsor, I am asking that the NixOS Foundation and/or NixCon EU team distanciates themselves from the NixCon NA team, and furthermore, it would be nice if they'd ask for them to pick a name reflecting their distance from the community. Still looking for words about this | 23:32:29 |
 @delroth:delroth.net | In reply to @samueldr:matrix.org
Still looking for words about this is the fact that the Foundation specifically approved the sponsor not the answer? they're likely not going to distance themselves from NixCon NA if they're who made the decision... (the NixCon EU question is maybe more relevant for NixCon EU organizers than this room) | 23:36:58 |
| samueldr | one can change their opinion | 23:37:14 |
| samueldr | I would prefer the foundation answers, rather than guesstimate given previous actions | 23:38:00 |
| samueldr | (and yeah, I posted it elsewhere that has and had less text volume than this room, for the NixCon EU peeps) | 23:41:31 |
| 12 Mar 2024 |
|  samrose joined the room. | 08:18:43 |
 infinisil | Since it's also relevant here: https://nixos-users-against-mic-sponsorship.github.io/ | 13:33:31 |
 ronef | Update: we have the biweekly board today in 45 minutes, added it
Will summarize and share | 14:14:28 |
| ronef | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/community-calendar/18589/119?u=ron
We will be holding the open board call tomorrow 16:00 UTC | 22:24:43 |
