 | NixOS Foundation | 496 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 126 Servers |
| NixOS Foundation | 496 Members |
| Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board | 126 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 15 Mar 2024 | ||
 delroth | isn't that a consequence of the board keeping most of their discussions on private/opaque channels? (which is a choice, to be clear - it doesn't have to be like this) | 10:45:36 |
| delroth | hard to know who stands for what and whether stuff is ignored or being discussed when that's all happening behind close doors | 10:45:56 |
| delroth | * hard to know who stands for what and whether stuff is ignored or being discussed when that's all happening behind closed doors | 10:46:04 |
 Janik (they/them) | Yeah that's true, at least to some extend. I can understand that there is some topics that you want to discuss in private (mostly stuff that involves personal details) but in general it would be awesome to have things more transparent, like having the meeting agenda public, maybe doing the meetings in a public manner where people can listen in to the decision making process, etc... | 10:51:24 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | I don't actually think that that's a good idea (having mods do that) - overseeing a board is a different kind of job from community management, in a different environment. There may be cases where it makes sense to call in moderators as external advisors, but I think the core job of supervising the board should be a separate one (and already is, I think?) | 11:25:14 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * I don't actually think that that's a good idea (having mods do that) - overseeing a board is a different kind of job from community management, in a different environment. There may be cases where it makes sense to call in moderators as external advisors when there's subject matter overlap, but I think the core job of supervising the board should be a separate one (and already is, I think?) | 11:25:45 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:27:26 |
 piegames | Yeah. Basically the moderators are mostly responsible for handling community code of conduct violations, while enforcing the Board code of conduct (also maybe this one should need a new name) would be up to the board observers | 11:27:46 |
 patka | Personally I see the foundation as an entity that is rather far removed from the community. I don't fully know what "supervising the board" would entail, but it seems like a good idea to me that they can at least be a voice coming from the community, considering them having to at least be aware of what is happening because of their moderation role. | 11:28:26 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when intenral consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:28:57 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * the way I have usually seen this resolved is to present points as "the board" when internal consensus could be found, make it clear publicly when it couldn't be, and then switch to speaking on personal title | 11:29:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | basically, there is nothing that keeps board members from speaking both collective and on a personal title depending on which is more appropriate for the situation, as long as it is clearly conveyed which it is, and that might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness | 11:30:01 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | * basically, there is nothing that keeps board members from speaking both collectively and on a personal title depending on which is more appropriate for the situation, as long as it is clearly conveyed which it is, and that might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness | 11:30:08 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (as well as provide more opportunities for the community to provide external assistance with reaching an internal consensus) | 11:30:41 |
 terraca | I have faith in the moderation team's judgment, considering they play a pivotal role in shaping our community's culture. It seems logical to also grant them authority over monitoring the board's conduct. I would certainly support empowering the moderation team to replace any board member who deviates from our cultural standards and ideological alignment. | 11:30:58 |
| patka | In reply to @joepie91:pixie.townI agree somewhat. But you state "might resolve the worst issues of apparent non-responsiveness" and so far that hasn't happened. So I personally don't see the status quo changing, hence why I quite like the idea/intention. | 11:32:35 |
 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 |