 | NixOS Foundation | 485 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 123 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 485 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 123 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Mar 2024 | ||
 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.orgcan 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.orgno, 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:
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.netthat 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.netWe abstain from Sponsors who glorify violence pornographic sites extremist sites Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them | 19:50:17 |
 piegames | 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* We abstain from Sponsors who glorify
| 19:52:47 |
| piegames | 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.townI would really like an answer to this question, to that en | 19:53:32 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town* 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 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townSinilarly, we would also discuss the processes which will govern sponsorship selection, regardless of established policies | 19:54:29 |
| @ultranix:matrix.org | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netbut the foundation isn't ran by RFCs, is it? | 19:56:11 |
 samueldr | this is making a parallel | 19:56:51 |
| delroth | In reply to @ultranix:matrix.orgplease ask the question you actually want to ask | 19:56:56 |
 patka | The foundation seems to be ran by people sticking their head into the sand | 19:57:03 |
 Julien | There is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) | 19:58:51 |
| Julien | * There is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the policy proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) | 19:59:10 |
| @ultranix:matrix.org | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netI'm not sure what you mean by that. | 19:59:28 |
| Julien | Accepting the sponsorship in this instance was, in contradiction with the intent, actually a strong decision in regards to the elements that were accessible to the foundation at that point | 20:00:22 |
| Julien | And not "an absence of decision because community should read consensus of these matters and not the foundation" | 20:00:57 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Julien: if what you intend to say is "accepting the sponsorship was in line with community feedback", then I strongly disagree - the anger at last year's incident should have been an abundantly clear signal | 20:01:12 |