 | NixOS Foundation | 486 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 486 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Mar 2024 | ||
 samueldr | other than the discourse | 00:18:48 |
| samueldr | * other than the discourse? | 00:19:08 |
 ronef | That + the sponsorship channel | 03:25:43 |
 Jonas Chevalier | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org Hey, thanks for trying to move the discussion towards something productive and practical. I especially like the idea of having the moderation team involved given the impact the current event had on you. Our next board meeting is next Wednesday and I will add this to the agenda as a priority item. | 08:54:17 |
 piegames | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comIs there anything I can currently do besides waiting for that meeting then? | 08:55:26 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I'm not sure. Maybe have more conversations? It's really hard for me to speak in the name of the foundation, because we're also humans with different opinions inside, and we try to find consensus before speaking. But I think this leads to this feeling of not being listened to. | 09:05:24 |
| piegames | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comI meant on the formal side, besides discussing it more (there's little I can do about that right now given nobody replied to it …) | 09:06:43 |
| Jonas Chevalier | The only think I can think of is moving the proposal to another pull-request to bring it a bit closer. | 09:08:58 |
| piegames | Sure. Where should I open the PR, and how should this be put into files? | 09:09:34 |
| Jonas Chevalier | https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pulls. We haven't adopted any formal policy yet but you can find a few tentative ones in there. | 09:12:01 |
| piegames | Instead of burdening the moderation team with even more responsibilities, I'd suggest pushing https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/44 forwards. | 09:45:53 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
I hope everyone here has enough empathy to understand this, this point gets often overlooked especially in the shorter discussion formats (like fedi, twitter, etc..) and I feel sorry for the board members that get torn apart on the inside because of those discussions. | 10:36:37 |
 delroth | isn't that a consequence of the board keeping most of their discussions on private/opaque channels? (which is a choice, to be clear - it doesn't have to be like this) | 10:45:36 |
| delroth | hard to know who stands for what and whether stuff is ignored or being discussed when that's all happening behind close doors | 10:45:56 |
| delroth | * hard to know who stands for what and whether stuff is ignored or being discussed when that's all happening behind closed doors | 10:46:04 |
| Janik (they/them) | Yeah that's true, at least to some extend. I can understand that there is some topics that you want to discuss in private (mostly stuff that involves personal details) but in general it would be awesome to have things more transparent, like having the meeting agenda public, maybe doing the meetings in a public manner where people can listen in to the decision making process, etc... | 10:51:24 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | I don't actually think that that's a good idea (having mods do that) - overseeing a board is a different kind of job from community management, in a different environment. There may be cases where it makes sense to call in moderators as external advisors, but I think the core job of supervising the board should be a separate one (and already is, I think?) | 11:25:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * I don't actually think that that's a good idea (having mods do that) - overseeing a board is a different kind of job from community management, in a different environment. There may be cases where it makes sense to call in moderators as external advisors when there's subject matter overlap, but I think the core job of supervising the board should be a separate one (and already is, I think?) | 11:25:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:27:26 |
| piegames | Yeah. Basically the moderators are mostly responsible for handling community code of conduct violations, while enforcing the Board code of conduct (also maybe this one should need a new name) would be up to the board observers | 11:27:46 |
 patka | Personally I see the foundation as an entity that is rather far removed from the community. I don't fully know what "supervising the board" would entail, but it seems like a good idea to me that they can at least be a voice coming from the community, considering them having to at least be aware of what is happening because of their moderation role. | 11:28:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when intenral consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:28:57 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when internal consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:29:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | basically, there is nothing that keeps board members from speaking both collective and on a personal title depending on which is more appropriate for the situation, as long as it is clearly conveyed which it is, and that might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness | 11:30:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * basically, there is nothing that keeps board members from speaking both collectively and on a personal title depending on which is more appropriate for the situation, as long as it is clearly conveyed which it is, and that might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness | 11:30:08 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (as well as provide more opportunities for the community to provide external assistance with reaching an internal consensus) | 11:30:41 |
 terraca | I have faith in the moderation team's judgment, considering they play a pivotal role in shaping our community's culture. It seems logical to also grant them authority over monitoring the board's conduct. I would certainly support empowering the moderation team to replace any board member who deviates from our cultural standards and ideological alignment. | 11:30:58 |
| patka | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townI agree somewhat. But you state "might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness" and so far that hasn't happened. So I personally don't see the status quo changing, hence why I quite like the idea/intention. | 11:32:35 |
 Federico Damián Schonborn joined the room. | 12:06:30 | |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @piegames:matrix.orgSummarize the outcome of the discussion with joepie91 🏳️🌈 above (the full log have a bit more details): there's an open call next Wednesday to discuss a lightweight short-term policy that we can use right now (I'm personally leaning towards having something that requires publishing a tentative list of sponsors early enough in advance so that people can voice their potential concern, but as I said, that's something to discuss there). | 15:42:39 |