| 28 Apr 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | this is fairly common for foundations in NL, for what it's worth, and not necessarily an unreasonable model when the effective governance scope is limited | 20:55:56 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | though depending on the specific circumstances, it can be less than ideal | 20:56:26 |
 vcunat | Democratic election? The community doesn't even have membership yet. | 20:57:39 |
| vcunat | * Democratic election? The NixOS community doesn't even have membership yet. | 20:57:52 |
 nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Democratic election? The NixOS community doesn't even have membership yet. Loi 1901 associations establish membership processes, &c. as linked above. | 20:58:14 |
| vcunat | I'm not saying that it's impossible. | 20:58:30 |
| vcunat | Just far from current reality. | 20:58:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | anyway, there are reasons why one might have a membership-driven foundation instead, but it's important to remember that it is not a magic band-aid for governance problems | 20:58:53 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
this is fairly common for foundations in NL, for what it's worth, and not necessarily an unreasonable model when the effective governance scope is limited I am not claiming it is unusual for Dutch foundations. | 20:59:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | if your governance is not already in a healthy place when you institute such a model, it is very easy to have things get worse | 20:59:30 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
I'm not saying that it's impossible. I think the current reality leaves something to be desired, namely, a meaningful relationship between the Foundation and the community. | 20:59:58 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
I'm not saying that it's impossible. * I think the current reality leaves something to be desired, namely, a meaningful (i.e., not merely notional) relationship between the Foundation and the community. | 21:01:20 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
if your governance is not already in a healthy place when you institute such a model, it is very easy to have things get worse If we had a loi 1901 association, contentious issues could be decisively settled by an absolute majority. There would be a clear mandate, direction, &c. not vague vibes and ressentiments. | 21:03:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | this is my day off so I am not going to have an extensive discussion about the dangers of majority rule | 21:03:38 |
 Arian | In reply to @nat-418:nat-418.xyz
I have been reading the by-laws of Stichting NixOS Foundation, and although I am not a lawyer, it appears to me the board of the foundation is hermetically sealed off from outside influence: board members are self-selecting, serve for an indefinite amount of time, and answer to none but themselves.
This seems less conducive to building a healthy community than, for example, the "loi 1901" association for Guix which establishes the democratic election of board members every year, as well as mechanisms for open and collective decision making of a general agenda:
https://foundation.guix.info/statutes/statuts-201602-en.pdf
If I have misunderstood the by-laws, I welcome correction. Yes this is the definition of a foundation. The bylaws are the basic template that basically every foundation uses | 21:04:09 |
| Arian | I am repeating myself again. But we had an extensive discussion about Associations vs Foundation really recently. Please scroll up :) | 21:04:40 |
| vcunat | Majority rule wouldn't help our situation at all. I'm quite convinced of that. | 21:05:03 |
| vcunat | If you a have controversial topic, voting is divisive. You'd get a result, but you couldn't say that the community would get appeased by that. | 21:07:19 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
If you a have controversial topic, voting is divisive. You'd get a result, but you couldn't say that the community would get appeased by that. As I understand it, today there is no real "community". It is merely notional, an abstract hypothetical of unknown persons. In a loi 1901 association, a definite and real body can make specific and actionable decisions. I would personally prefer to be on the losing side of a free and fair election than subject to unknown and mystifying machinations of unrelated social circles. | 21:14:46 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
If you a have controversial topic, voting is divisive. You'd get a result, but you couldn't say that the community would get appeased by that. * As I understand it, today there is no real "community". It is merely notional, an abstract hypothetical of unknown persons. In a loi 1901 association, a definite and real body can make specific and actionable decisions. I would personally prefer to be on the losing side of a free and fair election of my peers than subject to unknown and mystifying machinations of unrelated social circles. | 21:15:12 |
| nat-418 | And if majority rule is the problem, then demand unanimous consent. The point is not elections per se but a real community that can openly and freely organize. | 21:17:33 |
| nat-418 | * And if majority rule is the problem, then demand unanimous consent or sortition. The point is not elections per se but a real community that can openly and freely organize. | 21:18:23 |
| nat-418 | * And if majority rule is a problem, then demand unanimous consent or sortition. The point is not elections per se but a real community that can openly and freely organize. | 21:19:38 |
 Jonas Chevalier | 99% of the time the foundation is just holding assets, and the community is self-organizing. It's precisely when the foundation was asked to step in as an arbiter on the sponsorship conflict that it landed in hot waters, and re-inforced this notion that the foundation is in control. | 22:19:59 |
|  Federico Damián Schonborn changed their profile picture. | 22:47:32 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
99% of the time the foundation is just holding assets, and the community is self-organizing. It's precisely when the foundation was asked to step in as an arbiter on the sponsorship conflict that it landed in hot waters, and re-inforced this notion that the foundation is in control. How does "the community" make collective decisions? What is stopping someone from making a "Nix" product, event, or whatever else that contravenes such decisions? | 23:29:57 |
| 29 Apr 2024 |
 samrose | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
if your governance is not already in a healthy place when you institute such a model, it is very easy to have things get worse This is a good point, and it seems within our community's grasp to get governance in good shape. There are known good frameworks for doing this. | 00:31:10 |
| samrose | In reply to @nat-418:nat-418.xyz
As I understand it, today there is no real "community". It is merely notional, an abstract hypothetical of unknown persons. In a loi 1901 association, a definite and real body can make specific and actionable decisions. I would personally prefer to be on the losing side of a free and fair election of my peers than subject to unknown and mystifying machinations of unrelated social circles. I think there is a community. People who show up in spaces that are provided by the organization/project/foundation are the community | 00:33:06 |
| samrose | In reply to @nat-418:nat-418.xyz
And if majority rule is a problem, then demand unanimous consent or sortition. The point is not elections per se but a real community that can openly and freely organize. I think what you state is worth discussion. There is probably some process that can work for the people here, to have access to informing the rules they live by wrt to nix organization and community participation | 00:34:25 |
| samrose | In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
99% of the time the foundation is just holding assets, and the community is self-organizing. It's precisely when the foundation was asked to step in as an arbiter on the sponsorship conflict that it landed in hot waters, and re-inforced this notion that the foundation is in control. Probably it is the case that there needs to be some form of structure, with people stewarding it, that would have allowed people to collectively decide on the sponsorship issue. But since that structure did not exist, and there was an effective vacuum of leadership, then the community turned to the foundation (and also because the foundation contained people who had been leading or at least organizing on some aspects, like events) | 00:36:41 |
