 | NixOS Foundation | 483 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 122 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 483 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 122 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 10 Apr 2024 | ||
 samueldr |
The discussions never were about that. The foundation already was about "keep Nix about technology". The foundation was so strongly only about that, that it was not equipped with the means to react to a problematic situation where a clash in values of the community would happen. What happened is that, at first through inaction, the foundation signalled that it was fine with values that are controversial. The Foundation AFAIUI exists for the sole purpose of being a solid bedrock for the Nix project and its ecosystem to live and prosper. With the past events, trust in the ability of the board members was breached, twice. And I have yet to read and reason about the last 12 hours of happenings. So, saying at this point in time that this is all about keeping it about the Nix technology is a moot point: keeping the current status quo means that weapons manufacturers are a-okay. The status quo has been moved already. | 17:28:48 |
 ronef | Side FYI - This is the one day a quarter I'm fully out so apologies for either being slow or non responsive. It's part of a course/fellowship I've been taking on this topic called "touchy feely" around building relationships, trust, community through vulnerability, communications, openness and a bunch of other things. I'm super happy to share anything about this if anyone is interested <3 | 18:08:19 |
 Cat joined the room. | 21:22:46 | |
| 11 Apr 2024 | ||
 pareto-optimal-dev joined the room. | 03:51:03 | |
 vcunat | I don't like the topic, but I suppose it's worth knowing that it exists? https://discourse.nixos.org/t/is-there-a-policy-for-removing-foundation-members-or-what-is-considered-acceptable-behavior/43159 | 11:21:33 |
 Arian | I would just reply with a link to the Foundation's Statuten and then close the topic to be honest | 11:24:55 |
| Arian | Would be nice if we could publish the Statuten on github so that people don't have to pay KVK to read it | 11:25:15 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.orgThis was on the agenda for the last meeting, but we didn't have time to discuss it because we focused on the sponsorship policy. https://matrix.to/#/!CJXQiUGqNPcFonEdME:nixos.org/$5fdHfuHE2mTqP6_DeflhrbNGi7VXtzkAkSqa1WZnbC0?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=nixos.dev | 11:28:42 |
| Arian | I think a Vereniging could potentially be interesting. Where community members can pay to become a member and we rotate the board every year and people can vote for new board members (or in case of gross misconduct vote to fire them). But I think practically speaking it's super hard to operate with members that are not Dutch | 11:29:56 |
| Arian | so I honestly think what we currently have is probably the best we can do 🤷 | 11:30:19 |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @janik0:matrix.orgActually, if you have some time to work on it, it should be fairly easy to just redact the personal part from them, which is the only blocker for publishing them | 11:32:16 |
 delroth | note that if it's like german/swiss vereine and french associations, monetary payment is not a requirement to become members, and if this was given as an example of membership requirements it's a very unfortunate framing in the context of a FOSS project :) | 11:33:08 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.orgthis is a bit offtopic, but in Germany with a non-profit e.V. (the equivalent to a vereniging) you have some strict-ish limits on turnover and since I assume we want to keep out non-profit status this might not be a option. | 11:33:54 |
| delroth | (e.g. it would be an option to make a verein that says "you need N PRs merged to join the verein") | 11:34:04 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.netSure, I'll work on it later today and send it to you for review before publishing it. | 11:34:27 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | Thanks! That would be awesome | 11:34:49 |
| Arian | Our Vereniging at university actually spun off a separate Stichting to take on the financial risk of organizing conferences now that I remember. For that exact reason that Janik marks. So yeh probably same issue and we'll have to have a Stichting anyway | 11:36:27 |
| Arian | it's all complicated. but I just wanted to entertain the thought of being able to formalize some kind of election process for rotating board members from the community; legally speaking. IDK if it's a serious option that can actually be implemented. | 11:38:06 |
| delroth | otoh there's many e.V. I could name without having to do any research that I'm pretty sure have higher yearly budget than the Stichting NixOS | 11:38:43 |
| delroth | so maybe it's a dutch thing | 11:38:54 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @delroth:delroth.netif they are not a non-profit then it's fine. | 11:39:11 |
| delroth | the ones I'm thinking of are | 11:39:25 |
| delroth | and are even registered for tax deductible donations in germany | 11:39:36 |
| delroth | e.g. FSFE | 11:39:40 |
| Arian | The reason we spun it off is because organizing conferences comes with large financial risk (e.g. you need to cancel because a sponsor drops out and suddenly you have a 20k gap in your budget) and the amount that conferences cost to organize was way higher than what we had on the balance of the vereniging. | 11:40:54 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.orgI would personally recommend against attempting to solve governance problems in an established community by switching to a vereniging; this tends to amplify issues because now people need to figure out novel group consensus procedures and the existing governance tensions | 11:50:48 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (I do generally prefer group-consensus-based organization over board-led organization, it's just the transition under the circumstances that I think would be unwise) | 11:51:52 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.orgfor what it's worth, I think this is entirely possible under a stichting too | 11:55:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | it merely needs to be defined as such in a statute change, to be binding | 11:55:26 |
| delroth | The NixOS DAOâ„¢ /s (don't hurt me) | 11:55:52 |