In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
The way to go about this is to add regular board rotation. We still have a bunch of paperwork to fill so it's not a cheap operation, and we need to find a replacement. It's not like we have a ton of people lined up to work in that area.

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
The way to go about this is to add regular board rotation. We still have a bunch of paperwork to fill so it's not a cheap operation, and we need to find a replacement. It's not like we have a ton of people lined up to work in that area.

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
The way to go about this is to add regular board rotation. We still have a bunch of paperwork to fill so it's not a cheap operation, and we need to find a replacement. It's not like we have a ton of people lined up to work in that area.

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(note that a board member change in the foundation is a lot of paperwork and complexity either way due to how foundations work here - doesn't mean there can't be something more participatory, but an on-ramp would likely have to be informal)

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
(note that a board member change in the foundation is a lot of paperwork and complexity either way due to how foundations work here - doesn't mean there can't be something more participatory, but an on-ramp would likely have to be informal)

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
Sure, but that relies on the assumption that only board members can do foundation work, or at least that only the work that can be done only by board members serves as an on-ramp to being a board member. In my experience participating in non-profits: that's not true.

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
(also, is it a lot of paperwork? I was the secretary for a dutch Stichting until like 3 months ago, iirc the only paperwork is sending a protocol and updating the kvk listing - possibly providing a passport scan if the new board member isn't already in the right database? I guess depending on the amount of credentials sharing you might need to rotate those. Am I missing anything else?)

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
often the complexity is in dealing with banks and the like, which often also require you to file updates and can be considerably more difficult about it than the kvk

In reply to @janik0:matrix.org
not really I think :')
we probably should add that to: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/blob/master/role_and_responsibilities.md

I think it's important to clearly define the authority and duties of board observers. Specifically, I believe that board observers should shoulder the responsibility of establishing the ethical framework guiding decisions linked to the NixOS brand. Initially, it might be beneficial to engage the moderation team as consultants for these board observers.

This would allow board members to focus on their core responsibilities, entrusting ethical judgments to the board observers. Additionally, this could alleviate the burden on Eelco by transferring the obligation to define the Foundation's ethical standards to the observers.

As a result, board observers, along with moderators, are established as the primary ethical arbiters for the NixOS community.

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
there aren't a ton of people lined up but the foundation is also kinda set up in a way where there's no on-ramp for anyone to even consider lining up - the observer position is the only way people external to the board even get included, and IIRC that position was only created because "someone external" (who could that be? :P) was very insistent

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
Dunno, maybe, but both for our account at ABN AMRO (very... traditional bank) and Wise everything was in the name of the Stichting and they didn't need updates when board composition changed. (With roughly the same order of magnitude in assets in the bank account as the NixOS foundation.)

In reply to @ronef:matrix.org
I want to also call out that in Janik's case that was quite fast. There was a self nomination and he joined the following call quite quickly

In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
Would it have helped with the Anduril decision? I thought @raitobezarius was involved and clearly mentioned the downsides but got ignored. Am I reading the situation wrong?

Quick answer, I'd say yes and no. Yes, as in, more folks would help draining the Foundation backlog and thus would have helped towards the Anduril situation. No, as in, there's no clear way to say that one extra person would have changed/helped on the full situation, given the problem structure at hand. I have been onboarded/invited as a board observer recently (I have been made public by myself very recently, was onboarded few months ago IIRC, sorry, this is a messy tired message.) to the board upon an invitation of Ron FWIW.

Addressing the "being ignored" thing, I don't want to say that I have been ignored, everyone including me raised concerns regarding this sponsor, and the more general class of MIC but also other classes of ICs, e.g. AICs, etc.

More generally, I'd like to direct the conversation (if that's okay) towards multiple points:

• NixCon NA proceeded, most of the folks involved including on the board are probably exhausted and I'd like to invite for a pause so that, at least, on the board side, there can be a rest phase and taking into all the feedback that have been emitted. Not calling for the interest for this topic to settle down, of course, to be clear. Report from my eyes on-site: Anduril involvement has been, I'd say, minimal — no logo on signage, they had a stand in a corner without any banner, stickers on the table but quite far, of course, Anduril folks roamed around and participated into the conference in discussions, I heard/believe they had their logo in the conference room (one time? correct me if I'm wrong), obviously, the end result is still dissatisfying for many reasons but I acknowledge that the NixCon NA team reacted to the feedback and took some last minute decisions to adjust to community responses w.r.t. this sponsor visibility in the conference.

• The discussion in this channel has devolved into reforming the board structure and have extra components (keep in check via moderation team, etc.): it's a totally fair discussion but the issue is that the board is still trying to address fully and honestly the sponsorship policy discussion, going into that tangent seems a bit premature IMHO and makes it hard to see what to focus on.

• Sponsorship policy discussion: We discussed and I personally suggested to work on a policy that contains three components:

(1) Community vetting of sponsors
(2) Early/advance/sufficient notice for sponsorship proposals: there should be no situation where a sponsorship decision has to be rushed and enough advertising/marketing has to be performed to let the community vetting take place
(3) Pre-disposition to reject certain type of companies (MICs and other ICs that makes sense) and offer a initial line to draw regarding what to accept/what to reject.

At this point, what I suggest is that the sponsorship policy is obtained and set in stone for the next months/years. For this, I would appreciate if some folks are interested to formulate a text, a proposal that takes the three components proposed (or offer an alternative) and work out more details.

I am not calling to stop the inquiry process that's ongoing to diagnose/mitigate what happened, what would have helped, what should we do, etc. But I am suggesting to perform some topological sorting on the next steps if that's okay, taking into account that a bunch of folks on every sides went through intense engagements for the last days.

For this, I would appreciate if some folks are interested to formulate a text, a proposal that takes the three components proposed (or offer an alternative) and work out more details.

I think the proposal I made on Discourse and also linked here earlier touches on all three of these points in significant ways, and fleshes them out a bit more. Two comments down I also made a follow-up about a fourth point which came up, which talks about rules for employees at conferences.

I can try to combine them into something a bit more coherent and final, and also incorporate some of the feedback I've got on my proposals so far