| 12 May 2024 |
 nyanbinary | It's very concerning to see that board members can "endorse"/vouch for applicants for the assembly | 00:38:20 |
| nyanbinary | Like does nobody see the conflict here lmfao | 00:39:04 |
| nyanbinary | Ron & Jonas vouched for Silvan here. | 00:40:46 |
| nyanbinary | Dare I say this is a bit biased :P | 00:45:24 |
 infinisil | nyanbinary I put it in myself, didn't ask them explicitly, I disclosed it in the conflict of interest section too | 00:46:18 |
| infinisil | Fully agreed that it looks a bit weird, but I don't think it should be. I helped them out a ton in the past two weeks ;) | 00:47:20 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
nyanbinary I put it in myself, didn't ask them explicitly, I disclosed it in the conflict of interest section too That still doesn't explain why they "vouch" for you though. | 00:48:44 |
| infinisil | nyanbinary It says "who can vouch for you", which I interpreted to mean that "if you ask these people about me, they'll probably say that they enjoyed working with me" | 00:50:43 |
| infinisil | And it's not like putting board members there has any influence anyways. It's the board itself that selects the assembly! | 00:51:41 |
 Sumner Evans | maybe it's a "English language being ambiguous" issue, as it could be interpreted as: "these people have endorsed me" | 00:52:41 |
|  @sky1e:mildlyfunctional.gay joined the room. | 00:53:14 |
| Sumner Evans | * maybe it's a "English language being ambiguous" issue, as it could be interpreted as: "these people have endorsed me" which appears to be not the correct interpretation | 00:53:25 |
 Lunaphied | It's still a CoI to use the board's past experience with you as a reference in a position the board itself is selecting | 00:53:51 |
| Lunaphied | It is quite literally the most basic form of conflict of interest | 00:54:28 |
| infinisil | Yeah and I disclosed that | 00:54:54 |
| nyanbinary | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
Yeah and I disclosed that While saying "These don't really qualify as a conflict of interest, because the interest aligns with the larger community, but these should be mentioned regardless:" (downplaying it) | 01:01:21 |
| infinisil | nyanbinary: I mean, yeah that's what it just is. My interest is making this entire thing work out, that's why I spent so of my time on it the past weeks, there's no conflict in there. Or did I misunderstand what a conflict of interest is? | 01:05:06 |
| infinisil | Anyways, need to go to sleep. If anybody has serious concerns about my application it's probably best to reach out to the board directly for that, as mentioned in https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-constitutional-assembly-applications-open/45186 | 01:08:23 |
| Lunaphied | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
nyanbinary: I mean, yeah that's what it just is. My interest is making this entire thing work out, that's why I spent so of my time on it the past weeks, there's no conflict in there. Or did I misunderstand what a conflict of interest is? You have misunderstood: the conflict is that the board members have reason to select you over others due to their preexisting personal knowledge and relationship rather than your own personal merit. Your statement of using board members as vouches specifically implies that link is strong enough that it will influence opinion | 01:38:46 |
 Janik (they/them) | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
nyanbinary: I mean, yeah that's what it just is. My interest is making this entire thing work out, that's why I spent so of my time on it the past weeks, there's no conflict in there. Or did I misunderstand what a conflict of interest is? You were directly involved in designing the assembly and the application processes which makes this concerning. It's a bit like if a politician would go and say hey we need someone to do service X and then applied with a company owned by their spouse. | 07:38:27 |
 Arian | I find this negativity sad. Someone who has taken the time to be heavily involved in this process sounds particularly suitable as a member of the assembly to me.
The whole point is to set up governance process no? Then I want applicants who are heavily passionate about the governance process.
I don't see a conflict of interest at all. The opposite actually. | 07:47:08 |
| Arian | My two cents. Do with that what you want of course. | 07:47:34 |
 nat-418 | The problem was the category of "vouched" itself being unclear. A nomination process would have avoided this whole issue. I fully understand Lunaphied's concerns but I think the reality is that the application format had a design flaw that infinisil innocently stumbled on. I think we can acknowledge this as a design flaw of the process without questioning Silvain's good faith. | 08:09:55 |
 Valodim | I agree it's not a problem :) just don't call them vouches (because "vouching" as usually understood should be segregated from voting processes) and we're good | 08:11:26 |
| Valodim | * I agree it's not a problem :) just don't call them vouches (because "vouching" as usually understood should be segregated from voting roles) and we're good | 08:11:47 |
| nat-418 | Ultimatey the application selection process is a wholly arbitrary fiat, an act of discernment and, put simply, a judgement call. They gave us this process and we have to try and make it work. | 08:13:25 |
| nat-418 | * Ultimately the application selection process is a wholly arbitrary fiat, an act of discernment and, put simply, a judgement call. They gave us this process and we have to try and make it work. | 08:16:04 |
| nat-418 | * Ultimately the application selection process is a wholly arbitrary fiat, an act of discernment and, put simply, a judgement call on the Board's part. They gave us this process and we have to try and make it work. | 08:23:01 |
| nat-418 | * The problem was the category of "vouched" itself being unclear. A nomination process would have avoided this whole issue. I fully understand Lunaphied's concerns but I think the reality is that the application format had a design flaw that infinisil innocently stumbled on. I think we can acknowledge this as a bug in the process without questioning Silvain's good faith. | 10:54:38 |
 ronef | Morning
In an aim to further assure folks.
That section is indeed unclear and the presence of Board Members being on or off that list won't be meaningful for the appointment process. I believe it had an initial intention to potentially serve as a "reference call" of sorts, which we might not have time for regardless.
And therefore if I'm on a list, I will not use myself as a reference call. | 11:56:28 |
