| 13 Mar 2024 |
 tgunnoe | He said he doesn't want them to be in the position of moral arbiter, which is a completely reasonable stance | 18:13:41 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | (as a general note, foundations in the Netherlands are legally bound to their purpose as defined in the statutes) | 18:14:37 |
 tomberek | No, sponsorship is not exclusive. Having one sponsor demand to exclude another is not appropriate. We have multiple competitors simultaneously sponsor. | 18:17:52 |
 delroth | If you think that's a reasonable stance for the foundation's chair then I think it's also a very reasonable stance for me to hold that the foundation's board should be replaced with people who accept that they are in a position of moral arbiter. | 18:27:11 |
| delroth | and let's not forget that the board didn't refuse to make a decision, the board decided that Anduril was an ok sponsor to have for NixCon NA | 18:28:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(as a general note, foundations in the Netherlands are legally bound to their purpose as defined in the statutes) for completeness. this is my translation of the goal of the Foundation as it is defined in the statutes:
"The goal of the foundation is: developing, marketing and promoting of the adoption of the purely functional software deployment model, and supporting open-source projects which implement this model, as well as all that which in the broadest sense relates to this, belongs to it, or could encourage it."
| 18:36:17 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(as a general note, foundations in the Netherlands are legally bound to their purpose as defined in the statutes) * for completeness. this is my translation of the goal of the Foundation as it is defined in the statutes:
The goal of the foundation is: developing, marketing and promoting of the adoption of the purely functional software deployment model, and supporting open-source projects which implement this model, as well as all that which in the broadest sense relates to this, belongs to it, or could encourage it.
| 18:36:24 |
 piegames | In reply to @kaywerty:fnord.theinfinitycorporation.com
People can't seriously be even considering accepting a sponsorship from a military drone manufacturer. This is not constructive | 18:36:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | especially with the news that apparently the open letter has been signed by enough contributors to be responsible for 25% of the nixpkgs contributions, I question whether the Foundation is meeting its obligations here | 18:38:04 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (with the obligatory caveat that I am not a certified legal translator) | 18:39:28 |
 K. Werty | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
This is not constructive The only intent of the statement is to communicate that this utterly unacceptable. | 18:39:35 |
| K. Werty | Especially with 25% contributers signing a petition? Is NixOS run on "first past the post"? | 18:40:21 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @kaywerty:fnord.theinfinitycorporation.com
Especially with 25% contributers signing a petition? Is NixOS run on "first past the post"? not 25% of contributors just the people who do 25% of the work | 18:41:04 |
| Janik (they/them) | (probably even more because the stats don't include moderation, infra, etc... and since the stats were taken more people singed the letter) | 18:41:47 |
 Federico Damián Schonborn | 25% was *with* r-ryantm | 18:41:54 |
| Janik (they/them) | * (probably even more because the stats don't include moderation, infra, etc... and since the time the stats were taken more people singed the letter) | 18:42:06 |
| piegames | In reply to @kaywerty:fnord.theinfinitycorporation.com
The only intent of the statement is to communicate that this utterly unacceptable. Angry shouting people abound these days | 18:42:26 |
| Federico Damián Schonborn | In reply to @janik0:matrix.org
removing r-ryantm from the equation (by appending -involves:r-ryantm to the query) results in 92992 total prs and 26766 prs done by people who signed the letter, which is roughly 29% of contributions. See this ^ | 18:42:46 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @federicodschonborn:matrix.org
25% was *with* r-ryantm that only somewhat counts because if someone merges a r-ryantm pr it does get counted as involvement in the pr. | 18:43:02 |
| tgunnoe | I hope you find solace in your stance then. I am personally satisfied that the board was able come to an amicable solution and not bow to external pressures. For next time, we'll have a better polity set in stone that we can site and less of this divisiveness going forward | 18:43:34 |
| K. Werty | Its clearly a significant amount. Those are all people who very likely might feel bad enough about this decision to stop contributing to the project. Not only is it the wrong decision, it's a bad decision for the future of the project. Shortsighted and motivated by short-term financial gain. | 18:43:47 |
| K. Werty | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Angry shouting people abound these days One might consider that to be a red flag with respect to governance. | 18:43:58 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I do think that the real-world contribution percentage is probably higher, but I would say that 25% is already enough to raise serious questions about the Foundation's legal obligations, and I don't know how much value there is in trying to quantify precise amounts of difficult-to-quantify things | 18:44:19 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that seems like something that's unlikely to result in much useful, and more likely to result in endless arguing :) | 18:45:16 |
| tgunnoe | it's a good thing that other prospective sponsors or donars can look from the outside at the project and see some consistence and less last minute changes | 18:45:27 |
| delroth | do you imagine that "better policy" would (beyond any reasonable doubt) allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? | 18:45:35 |
| delroth | if your "better policy" accepts Anduril as a sponsor all you're saying is that you want a policy that ignores the hundreds of contributors that have deemed this unacceptable | 18:46:13 |
| delroth | * do you imagine that "better policy" would allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? | 18:47:14 |
| tgunnoe | In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
do you imagine that "better policy" would allow for Anduril as a sponsor? if not, then why wait for the "better policy" to be designed to say no to Anduril? are they an illegal entity? are they sactioned? those seem to be reasonable red flags to deny sponsorships, otherwise I've only heard hearsay about perceived damages | 18:47:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | that seems like a lot of words to roundabout-justify something that I'm pretty sure you're well aware is harmful | 18:48:39 |
