!CJXQiUGqNPcFonEdME:nixos.org

NixOS Foundation

470 Members
Public room for chatting with the NixOS Foundation Board116 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
13 Mar 2024
@ultranix:matrix.org@ultranix:matrix.org
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
to be maybe even more clear: it's not that there is no signal that the feedback was received, it's that there was signal that the feedback would be ignored: the foundation board explicitly said they'd follow an unapproved policy which goes against the community's outcry in Sept 2023 (and written by someone with imo a clear conflict of interest), and the foundation chair explicitly said they're uninterested in having any kind of policy past checking if a sponsor is legal
Is there some policy pertaining to the petition that was proposed after Sept 2023, besides tomberek 's?
19:29:28
@joepie91:pixie.town@joepie91:pixie.townand so they've had every opportunity to see this coming and prepare for it, and chose not to19:29:41
@ronef:matrix.orgronefI left the meeting today feeling that the direction was open to define a policy that we can all agree to. I believed I tried to portray that but that doesn't cancel at all the feelings anyone left with.19:29:53
@ronef:matrix.orgronefI personally have a bias towards bottom up decision making, but I did hear mentions during the conversation that made me think more about that.19:30:52
@phileas:asra.gr@phileas:asra.gr joined the room.19:31:35
@joepie91:pixie.town@joepie91:pixie.town
In reply to @ronef:matrix.org
I left the meeting today feeling that the direction was open to define a policy that we can all agree to. I believed I tried to portray that but that doesn't cancel at all the feelings anyone left with.
can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot
19:32:08
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net
In reply to @ultranix:matrix.org
Is there some policy pertaining to the petition that was proposed after Sept 2023, besides tomberek 's?
no, all we had was a precedent of an Anduril sponsorship being seen as undesirable by many contributors, which seem to have been forgotten in the proposed policy draft
19:35:23
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net

sponsoring policy proposal:

  1. not Anduril;
  2. other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process

approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo

19:36:11
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.netsince apparently we need to make concrete policy proposals19:36:29
@ultranix:matrix.org@ultranix:matrix.org
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
since apparently we need to make concrete policy proposals
that would definitely be a start I think. tomberek put the initial work in and there hasn't been any responses or followups by anyone until a few days ago
19:49:29
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.netthere's a reason why we have the FCP for RFCs19:50:02
@ronef:matrix.orgronefSide note for transparency, I'm going to be back in 2.5 hours. I've taken a one year course called "Touchy Feely" (Back in the end of September). I'd love to share if anyone is interested but that's a totally different thread.19:50:05
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.netnobody was expecting this proposal to be ever considered final/usable19:50:15
@0x4a6f:matrix.org[0x4A6F]
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net

sponsoring policy proposal:

  1. not Anduril;
  2. other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process

approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo

We abstain from Sponsors who glorify
violence
pornographic sites
extremist sites
Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them
19:50:17
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgPornographic sites is oddly specific but I guess19:52:01
@0x4a6f:matrix.org[0x4A6F]We shouldn't probhibit our one presence due to Youth protection constrains.19:52:10
@0x4a6f:matrix.org[0x4A6F]
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net

sponsoring policy proposal:

  1. not Anduril;
  2. other sponsors to be handled via the historical ad-hoc process

approved? seems like an improvement over the current status-quo

*

We abstain from Sponsors who glorify

  • violence
  • pornographic sites
  • extremist sites
  • Pages that trivialize crimes and call for them
19:52:47
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.orgI mean obviously not going to have that debate but it *would* be funny though19:52:53
@joepie91:pixie.town@joepie91:pixie.towngiven that there is no commitment yet to even considering policy changes, it seems premature to start debating over the exact exclusion list19:52:59
@joepie91:pixie.town@joepie91:pixie.town
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot
I would really like an answer to this question, to that en
19:53:32
@joepie91:pixie.town@joepie91:pixie.town
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
can this openness to an adjusted policy (and commitment to fair consideration) be formalized in some way? I expect that that would help a lot
* I would really like an answer to this question, to that end
19:53:33
@0x4a6f:matrix.org[0x4A6F]Yeah, I had a mockup with some of that sites as sponsors for theroretical NixCon sponsorship page. But no...19:53:50
@piegames:matrix.org@piegames:matrix.org
In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
given that there is no commitment yet to even considering policy changes, it seems premature to start debating over the exact exclusion list
Sinilarly, we would also discuss the processes which will govern sponsorship selection, regardless of established policies
19:54:29
@ultranix:matrix.org@ultranix:matrix.org
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
there's a reason why we have the FCP for RFCs
but the foundation isn't ran by RFCs, is it?
19:56:11
@samueldr:matrix.org@samueldr:matrix.orgthis is making a parallel19:56:51
@delroth:delroth.net@delroth:delroth.net
In reply to @ultranix:matrix.org
but the foundation isn't ran by RFCs, is it?
please ask the question you actually want to ask
19:56:56
@patka_123:matrix.org@patka_123:matrix.org The foundation seems to be ran by people sticking their head into the sand 19:57:03
@julienmalka:matrix.orgJulienThere is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) 19:58:51
@julienmalka:matrix.orgJulien * There is clearly a level of discrepancy between the community consensus of what the foundation used to make a decision on this sponsorship (the policy proposal has received no attention or consensus) and the precedent of dropping Anduril in September (that was done already with a lot of voices and concerns from community members) 19:59:10
@ultranix:matrix.org@ultranix:matrix.org
In reply to @delroth:delroth.net
please ask the question you actually want to ask
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
19:59:28

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 10