| 27 Apr 2024 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
Okay but shat I don't understand. Isn't "the board will not have an opinion" a first step to "the community decides" ? the problem is that the board - especially eelco - frequently does have an opinion | 13:21:50 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | when I say "explicit non-interference" I mean an actual strict rule about board members not involving themselves with team decisions and sticking to that rule | 13:22:34 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | there needs to be no uncertainty, no doubt, whatsoever, that a decision made within a team is going to remain unchallenged | 13:22:53 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | we do not have this today and we have not had this since the beginning of the project, as far as I can tell | 13:23:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | just saying "the board has no opinion" is not sufficient when you then have a board member proceeding to behave contrary to that claim | 13:23:50 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | there are many ways to solve that, but one thing that is certain is that as long as eelco both holds a position of (board) authority and abrasively butts into decisionmaking procedures, we will not have functioning community governance | 13:25:25 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (this applies to other board members too in principle but I have not observed this behaviour from them) | 13:25:36 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | those two things are just fundamentally incompatible if you want community governance | 13:26:26 |
|  hexchen left the room. | 13:40:02 |
 Eelco | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
there needs to be no uncertainty, no doubt, whatsoever, that a decision made within a team is going to remain unchallenged Then let's be consistent with that: if (say) the NixCon NA team accepts a certain sponsor, nobody challenges that?
I also would like to know what team decisions board members have interfered with. | 13:41:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | have you read a word of what I've said? | 13:42:18 |
 yorickvp | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
there are many ways to solve that, but one thing that is certain is that as long as eelco both holds a position of (board) authority and abrasively butts into decisionmaking procedures, we will not have functioning community governance I don't think the board authority is as much of a problem as the implicit authority that comes with being the BDFL. If we don't want a BDFL, I think we should say so explicitly and not act like we have one (on all sides). | 13:53:25 |
|  Robert Hensing (roberth) joined the room. | 13:55:09 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | BDFL is maybe a better description, yes | 13:56:07 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | but the board is still the one who holds the legal authority in the end | 13:56:28 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | and so a declaration to that effect would still need to involve them | 13:56:47 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @niksnut:matrix.org
Then let's be consistent with that: if (say) the NixCon NA team accepts a certain sponsor, nobody challenges that?
I also would like to know what team decisions board members have interfered with. so the thing with this is that I would be more inclined to answer questions if they weren't a question that was answered several messages ago, and a question that a reference (namely the open letter) was already provided for | 13:58:19 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @niksnut:matrix.org
Then let's be consistent with that: if (say) the NixCon NA team accepts a certain sponsor, nobody challenges that?
I also would like to know what team decisions board members have interfered with. * so the thing with this is that I would be more inclined to answer questions if they weren't a question that was literally answered several messages ago, and a question that a reference (namely the open letter) was already provided for | 13:58:33 |
 nat-418 | In reply to @yorickvp:matrix.org
I don't think the board authority is as much of a problem as the implicit authority that comes with being the BDFL. If we don't want a BDFL, I think we should say so explicitly and not act like we have one (on all sides). Eelco said earlier today in this thread that he is not a BDFL.
So let's take him at his word and adopt a structure (like an e.V.) that owns the trademarks etc. for Nix and democratically governs the project. Structurelessness can indeed be a tyranny. | 13:59:24 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
the sponsorship situation is an exceptional one, because it concerns "using the reputation of the project as a whole for something" (namely, endorsement of the sponsor) and this means that making that decision is not within the mandate of a conference team to begin with . | 13:59:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
Théophane: to be more explicit, a chunk of the open letter regarding eelco addresses this problem . | 13:59:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | nat-418: as I mentioned above, the project is not structureless to begin with, we already have governance structures, that is not the problem | 14:01:13 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
nat-418: as I mentioned above, the project is not structureless to begin with, we already have governance structures, that is not the problem Who owns the trademarks? | 14:01:33 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the foundation does, to my knowledge | 14:01:44 |
| nat-418 | Who has the power to tell a confernce "no"? | 14:01:47 |
| nat-418 | * Who has the power to tell a conference "no"? | 14:01:54 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the vast majority of project governance is not related to trademarks in any way | 14:02:10 |
| nat-418 | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
nat-418: as I mentioned above, the project is not structureless to begin with, we already have governance structures, that is not the problem
The board is not responsible for technical leadership, decisions, or direction.
this is structurelessness | 14:06:13 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | no... | 14:06:23 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | "the board" is not the governance structure that we have | 14:06:37 |
