 | NixOS Foundation | 487 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 487 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 124 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Mar 2024 | ||
 Manu [tennox] | I agree with the letter and it's intentions (also signed it) But I don't agree with the amount of stress and turmoil I'm seeing here. I agree that - as far as I have seen - the handling from "the foundation" (also mostly a bunch of volunteers) is poor and lacking transparency. But if we want to support peace in the world I think we gotta start with a humbleness here and realize that this does not serve. The letter has set a clear statement and now it's also time to let dust settle and let things move. All of us involved here are also just: humans. | 19:22:42 |
 @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 happenin | 19:24:03 |
| @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 | 19:24:04 |
| Manu [tennox] | I see | 19:24:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and in that context, "letting the dust settle and letting things move" boils down to "nothing will happen and things won't change". it would be different if there had been a receptive response | 19:24:52 |
 ronef | Thanks for clarifying this, that was helpful as I felt I missed something between the call to the following | 19:25:17 |
 patka | In reply to @tennox:matrix.orgThe big problem here is that a foundation is there to at least acknowledge a community. @Théophane is saying go away. @Eelco is only adding a heart emoji and @ronef is just lurking. | 19:25:43 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | as further clarification, I expect that this comment in particular did not help: https://matrix.to/#/!CJXQiUGqNPcFonEdME:nixos.org/$wqhw2GMwsigm8lamlO7gxkb1RwepG4ZbqFDcRDTOaE8?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=nixos.dev | 19:26:01 |
| 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.townto 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.netIs 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.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 |