 | NixOS Foundation | 487 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 123 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 487 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 123 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Mar 2024 | ||
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townRight. Thanks for the partial explanation, I think this is enough to frame the big picture even if we don't yet define the details | 20:35:27 |
 infinisil | In reply to @aleksana:mozilla.orgI don't think it should be consensus-based, but rather veto-based, e.g. at least 10% of representatives (needs to be defined, but can be done) need to be against it | 20:37:20 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | Théophane: hmm, I suppose there is a fourth option, too; a bare-minimum interim policy (or interim interim policy?) that at least this specific sponsor is not an acceptable one | 20:38:06 |
 tgunnoe | Overall, I’ve heard extremely positive feedback about the foundation team, and I can imagine folks who have skirted the edge on being a positive contributor to the ecosystem may feel threatened by it. That is normal, too. If parts of the community are unhappy with the foundation's decisions or other processes / outcomes of the project, it is always possible to exercise the four freedoms of open source and create the project and community they want. | 20:39:09 |
| infinisil | Main reason being that if you accept X as sponsor, you risk losing contributors, but if you don't accept them, you don't risk losing contributors | 20:39:10 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | under the assumption that we don't yet have a horde of similarly problematic sponsors beating down the door for the next event, and so this would provide at least an immediate-term policy for a case that is clearly considered problematic, functioning as a starting point for a more refined policy and giving everyone more time to figure out a better policy going forward | 20:40:06 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townTo clarify the proposal you mention, I suggested multiple times in the past days regarding the moderation discussion we had to work with https://otter.technology/ who had success (?) with other large scale communities (which is what we are starting to look like). | 20:40:35 |
 fgaz joined the room. | 20:47:33 | |
 aleksana | We really lack some sort of decision-making mechanism. Most of the current RFCs are solving problems that were a mess (or poor assumption) in the previous development process, so most people would agree because it does not make the status quo worse. Disagreement often occurs in details such as features and package maintenance, but disputes often end due to active promotion or rejection by people with authority. This masks the above problems, but is not a long-term viable and healthy solution. It just so happens that this dispute has brought up the issue again. | 20:47:41 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | yep, this is true. unfortunately, it ties into a moderation problem - last time I tried to broach this topic, I had to drop it due to abusive behaviour from another community participant that was not adequately responded to, and I have heard similar stories from others | 20:49:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (and have experienced some variant of this problem myself multiple times by now) | 20:49:55 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | this is more or less the same problem that initially spawned the suggestion of engaging with an outside expert to begin with, I believe | 20:50:34 |
 patka | I'm going to remove myself from this conversation because it is burning me out. I'd just like to leave with copying a post from elsewhere that perfectly states what I feel is most problematic. > This is a sentiment which has been dragging out for quite a while now, but currently I feel it more than ever: The current foundation board increasingly feels disconnected from the community and its members. I am starting to doubt that the current cast is well suited for making meaningful decisions aligned with many of our contributors. Setting aside the question whether or not military sponsorships are okay in general, given the debacle at the last NixCon, simply accepting Anduril was an unacceptable thing to do. I still have difficulties grasping how at all these stages seemingly nobody anticipated the community fallout (and the very real PR damage to the project as a whole) that such a decision would have. And while yes the sponsorship selection was mainly done by the NixCon NA organizers AFAICT, the ball ultimately should have stopped at the Foundation. https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixcon-na-2024-is-getting-sponsored-by-anduril-what-to-do-about-it/41258/13 | 21:05:53 |
| patka | * I'm going to remove myself from this conversation because it is burning me out. I'd just like to leave with copying a post from elsewhere that perfectly states what I feel is most problematic. > "This is a sentiment which has been dragging out for quite a while now, but currently I feel it more than ever: The current foundation board increasingly feels disconnected from the community and its members. I am starting to doubt that the current cast is well suited for making meaningful decisions aligned with many of our contributors. Setting aside the question whether or not military sponsorships are okay in general, given the debacle at the last NixCon, simply accepting Anduril was an unacceptable thing to do. I still have difficulties grasping how at all these stages seemingly nobody anticipated the community fallout (and the very real PR damage to the project as a whole) that such a decision would have. And while yes the sponsorship selection was mainly done by the NixCon NA organizers AFAICT, the ball ultimately should have stopped at the Foundation." https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixcon-na-2024-is-getting-sponsored-by-anduril-what-to-do-about-it/41258/13 | 21:07:23 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Théophane: just to confirm: when a decision is made on the interim (interim interim?) policy, where will we be able to find the announcement? and what sort of timeline should we expect for that policy being formalized? | 21:09:15 |
| patka | * I'm going to remove myself from this conversation because it is burning me out. I'd just like to leave with copying a post from elsewhere that perfectly states what I feel is most problematic. > "This is a sentiment which has been dragging out for quite a while now, but currently I feel it more than ever: The current foundation board increasingly feels disconnected from the community and its members. I am starting to doubt that the current cast is well suited for making meaningful decisions aligned with many of our contributors. Setting aside the question whether or not military sponsorships are okay in general, given the debacle at the last NixCon, simply accepting Anduril was an unacceptable thing to do. I still have difficulties grasping how at all these stages seemingly nobody anticipated the community fallout (and the very real PR damage to the project as a whole) that such a decision would have. And while yes the sponsorship selection was mainly done by the NixCon NA organizers AFAICT, the ball ultimately should have stopped at the Foundation." https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixcon-na-2024-is-getting-sponsored-by-anduril-what-to-do-about-it/41258/14 | 21:13:34 |
 tomberek | Cleeyv pointed to a policy and a set of procedures that included an objection and veto mechanism: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixcon-na-2024-is-getting-sponsored-by-anduril-what-to-do-about-it/41258/7 | 21:15:03 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townWe're having an open call next week. That'll be the place to settle that. | 21:15:39 |
 MangoIV | BTW; As others here already touched, I don’t think „But think about other possibly unethical things/ what if we at some point need some other military sponsor“ works very well here as an argument; it’s basically the definition of Whataboutism; the issues the community has is about this specific instance of the problem, of course it can be generalised but it doesn’t mean that it invalidates this instance. | 21:15:39 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | If you're worried about it being decided in semi-secrecy: I will personally make sure it is advertised everywhere relevant | 21:16:41 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | (at least in the Announcement discourse category) | 21:17:03 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | Théophane: thanks. I assume it will be published in written form somewhere as well? (not everyone will be able to attend calls for various reasons, including accessibility-related, and calls don't make a great historical record either) | 21:17:28 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | I wouldn't call that a policy otherwise | 21:19:04 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | right :) would it also be posted under Announcements on the Discourse, or elsewhere? | 21:19:39 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townMight be copied in discourse for visibility, but it should probably live in a more "formal" place like NixOS/foundation | 21:21:00 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | alright - I will make sure to check both, if I can't attend the call | 21:21:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I think everything is clear for me now | 21:21:51 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townJust to be clear: I can't promise that the policy will directly come out of the call - if only because writing it down probably might fit in a 1h session. But it should set the big picture. Writing it down might take up to an extra week | 21:28:39 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that's understandable - I'm certainly not expecting everything to be instantly done :) the important thing to me is that concrete progress is made (and keeps being made) in the right direction | 21:29:47 |
 @jonringer:matrix.org joined the room. | 22:08:14 | |