 | NixOS Foundation | 475 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 120 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 475 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 120 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Apr 2024 | ||
 Fritz Otlinghaus | * Tumble: this is the wrong room for this, please ask in the general nixos room such questions | 09:49:58 |
 @tumble1999:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comI saw nix con here | 09:51:01 |
| @tumble1999:matrix.org | Im sorry | 09:51:35 |
 @delroth:delroth.net | And to be clear: I don't attribute any of what I describe to the individual members of the board, but these are the outcomes I'm seeing. It's not like I have any visibility into the internal workings of the board anyway since so much of it is completely opaque. All I see is no decision being made, no public statement being clearly made in name of the board, and the only clear opinions being stated by individual members of the board have been "oh we shouldn't be involved in making decisions about sponsors" (you know from whom). | 09:53:19 |
 Jonas Chevalier | I agree with the sentiment. It would have been easier to just admit the mistake so we could all move on. And I wish we did that a long time ago. | 09:54:10 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Now I'm stuck with this policy document, and the next best thing I can do is try to at least get that ratified | 09:56:06 |
| @tumble1999:matrix.org left the room. | 09:57:32 | |
| Jonas Chevalier | On top of this, I would also take some time to address your concerns. I would love to find a model where the foundation can be more decisive. | 10:02:07 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | I don't know about that. Let's take a step back: the only reason we're talking about a policy document is because the board has been unwilling to object to a second Anduril sponsorship without having said policy document. That's a self-imposed requirement. The board could just be making those decisions, and it's not like you were lacking internal objections to Anduril (Raito did object, from what I've heard? You could have objected?), you just ignored those objections. The board stating clearly that they'll take decisive decisions from now on, consult with the community as they feel appropriate, and actually follow up on that in the future would solve the problem equally as well. But of course that would be unacceptable to the rule lawyers that have been wasting our time for the past month. | 10:03:05 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * (re: "stuck with this policy document") I don't know about that. Let's take a step back: the only reason we're talking about a policy document is because the board has been unwilling to object to a second Anduril sponsorship without having said policy document. That's a self-imposed requirement. The board could just be making those decisions, and it's not like you were lacking internal objections to Anduril (Raito did object, from what I've heard? You could have objected?), you just ignored those objections. The board stating clearly that they'll take decisive decisions from now on, consult with the community as they feel appropriate, and actually follow up on that in the future would solve the problem equally as well. But of course that would be unacceptable to the rule lawyers that have been wasting our time for the past month. | 10:03:21 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * (re: "stuck with this policy document") I don't know about that. Let's take a step back: the only reason we're talking about a policy document is because the board has been unwilling to object to a second Anduril sponsorship without having said policy document. That's a self-imposed requirement. The board could just be making those decisions, and it's not like the board were lacking internal objections to Anduril (Raito did object, from what I've heard? You could have objected?), they just ignored those objections. The board stating clearly that they'll take decisive decisions from now on, consult with the community as they feel appropriate, and actually follow up on that in the future would solve the problem equally as well. But of course that would be unacceptable to the rule lawyers that have been wasting our time for the past month. | 10:03:54 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Even if I would agree, the expectation is now that we will pass this document. Maybe it's a sunken cost fallacy. | 10:04:45 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | (Of course what I described in my last paragraph won't happen though - I don't believe the board can even unanimously agree on that at this point.) | 10:05:41 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | * (Of course what I described in my last paragraph won't happen though - I don't believe the board can even unanimously agree on that at this point. And really that's the core problem.) | 10:05:55 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comI can write you down a policy which will make the job for the foundation board easy. But this would still require the board to make at least one difficult decision to accept it | 10:06:32 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * I can write you down a policy which will make the job for the foundation board easy. But this would still require the board to make at least one difficult decision: to accept it | 10:07:03 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I'd like to avoid going back to the drawing board if possible, so we can get this passed today | 10:07:47 |
| Jonas Chevalier | I'm not particularly attached to any document, I'd just like to get this over with | 10:08:38 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | With the current one, it won't be over if it passes. That's my concern | 10:09:28 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comIt's not that much of a step back, since most of the details have already been discussed in detail. Only need to assemble the bricks back in the right order. | 10:10:22 |
| Jonas Chevalier | How fast can you get it to a semi-good state? | 10:12:01 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | At some point you have to realize that you can't design a policy that will make happy people who don't want an Anduril sponsorship as well as make happy people who deliberately went to pick Anduril as a sponsor for their event after the giant community outcry pre-nixcon-eu. There is no "consensus" or "middle point" to be found here, these are two completely opposite viewpoints. What is really needed is for the foundation to decide, one way or another, whether you want Anduril & co sponsorships or not. | 10:14:19 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | Like, you must have realized that the whole nitpicking over the current policy is about stacking the selection committee one way or another to guarantee an outcome | 10:14:38 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | (And yes, both sides of the debate are obviously doing this) | 10:15:04 |
 @patka_123:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.compiegames I don't want to interfere in any of these conversations. Just please take care of yourself though, this process is draining and you are on a holiday. Just a small note out of concern, nothing more :) | 10:15:25 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | Sunday's meeting ended with a selection committee stacked in a way that made people against Anduril sponsorships comfortable, so obviously the next day we had jonringer questioning the composition of the selection commitee, then today we have tomberek questioning the legitimacy of the PL team which is planned to be part of the selection committee (and you helpfully taking that as a sign we should remove the PL seat, shifitng the balance). | 10:17:05 |
| @delroth:delroth.net | It's all stupid politics games. | 10:17:14 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comNext time I'm on my laptop +2h. So this night but not before the meeting today unfortunately | 10:17:21 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @patka_123:matrix.orgThanks. I can't relax either way until this is out of the door, so … | 10:18:17 |
| Jonas Chevalier | Can I maybe also clear some misunderstanding I see. I think there is a conflict in expectations of what is excepted from the board. There are largely two different models that I see.
When the foundation says it doesn't want to be involved in this, I think it largely stems in wanting to be (2). Internally, the discussion we had is that no-military is a difficult criteria to apply since there is so many gradients in there, and we didn't feel equipped to deal with this. I would like to dispel this idea that the foundation is pro military. I don't think this is what is happening. Does that help a little bit? | 10:20:04 |