 | NixOS Foundation | 490 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 125 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 490 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 125 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Mar 2024 | ||
 Federico Damián Schonborn joined the room. | 12:06:30 | |
 @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @piegames:matrix.orgSummarize the outcome of the discussion with joepie91 🏳️🌈 above (the full log have a bit more details): there's an open call next Wednesday to discuss a lightweight short-term policy that we can use right now (I'm personally leaning towards having something that requires publishing a tentative list of sponsors early enough in advance so that people can voice their potential concern, but as I said, that's something to discuss there). | 15:42:39 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | For the final policy, I agree with Jonas Chevalier: open a PR to NixOS/foundation that we (the community) can discuss | 15:43:44 |
| @theophane:hufschmitt.net | In reply to @theophane:hufschmitt.netSide note: I do hope this is just not obvious because of the heat of the moment, and it's generally clear for everyone that people can propose changes or offer to refine policies that way (like Janik (they/them) did for the transparency document recently). Otherwise please let us know how we can improve this | 15:48:22 |
 ronef | +1 to the comments here and thanks joepie91 🏳️🌈 for putting it down in that format, it's helpful | 15:50:01 |
 terraca |
joepie91 🏳️🌈 How can we ensure that the board observers share the same ideological perspectives as the moderation team to prevent situations similar to Anduril in the future? | 19:47:36 |
 hexa | Not even the people in the moderation team share the same ideological perspective. We just work together to arrive at a result all of us can agree on. | 20:21:51 |
| hexa | I also don't really see having the same "ideological perspective" as something desirable. | 20:22:26 |
| terraca | I'm sorry for the confusion caused. When I mentioned "ideological alignment," I was referring to ensuring a feeling of safety within our community. Allowing sponsorship from Anduril compromises this. How can we guarantee that our board observers share this commitment to safety? I believe our moderation team is reliable on this matter. Could we consider having the moderation team select the board observers? | 20:50:33 |
| terraca | * I'm sorry for the confusion caused. When I mentioned "ideological perspective," I was referring to ensuring a feeling of safety within our community. Allowing sponsorship from Anduril compromises this. How can we guarantee that our board observers share this commitment to safety? I believe our moderation team is reliable on this matter. Could we consider having the moderation team select the board observers? | 20:51:13 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | from what I know, the current board observers have a good understanding of community safety requirements | 21:10:19 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @terraca:matrix.orgWe currently have two board observer, one of them being @raitobezarius and I guess the other one being myself (I didn't get a clear answer from the board yet, we literally had our first meeting together last Friday). I care a lot about this community and it's safety and also signed the antim ic open letter | 21:18:29 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @terraca:matrix.org* We currently have two board observer, one of them being @raitobezarius and I guess the other one being myself (I didn't get a clear answer from the board yet, we literally had our first meeting together last Friday). I care a lot about this community and it's safety and also signed the anti mic open letter | 21:18:36 |
| ronef | Personally I'm open to having more folks join the meetings if it can diversify the perspective to a better extent | 21:30:14 |
 @davelester:matrix.org joined the room. | 23:33:55 | |
 @favoritohjs:matrix.org joined the room. | 23:48:51 | |
| 16 Mar 2024 | ||
| terraca | In reply to @janik0:matrix.orgI'm glad to hear that! I'm curious, however, about the roles and authorities of a board observer. Do they possess the ability to substitute a board member? I would be grateful if someone could direct me to a document detailing their powers and responsibilities. Thank you in advance. | 00:08:43 |
 @grahamc:nixos.org joined the room. | 00:54:13 | |
 delroth | In reply to @ronef:matrix.orgWould 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? | 02:48:10 |
| Janik (they/them) | In reply to @terraca:matrix.orgnot really I think :') we probably should add that to: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/blob/master/role_and_responsibilities.md | 06:48:36 |
 Jonas Chevalier | 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. | 09:12:59 |
| Jonas Chevalier | * 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. | 09:13:32 |
| delroth | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comthere 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 | 10:28:32 |
| delroth | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com* 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 | 10:29:06 |
 Julien | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.comI for one would be interested to be more invested in Foundation work | 10:37:39 |
| @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) | 11:44:42 |
| delroth | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townSure, 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 member serves as an on-ramp to being a board member. In my experience participating in non-profits: that's not true. | 11:47:16 |
| delroth | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town* 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. | 11:49:13 |
| delroth | (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?) | 11:55:36 |
 Sean Ross joined the room. | 12:00:10 | |