| 20 Feb 2024 |
 7c6f434c | The entire story of flakes and functionality loss on transition is a story of too much vision and too much thinking about a single use case. | 05:47:18 |
 @falaichte:techsaviours.org | I would like to bring up the current conventions of off-topic versus on topic and their relation to #Nix / NixOS and #Nix Offtopic in particular. I have found that it can be quite difficult to speak on-topic in #Nix / NixOS without having any discussion become buried beneath support requests.
Therefore it is not conductive to discuss on-topic subjects in that room in the manner you would expect in a channel on an instant messaging platform. To this end, I would appreciate if the governance of Nix as a platform may reconsider allowing the discussion of on-topic subjects in #Nix Offtopic, so long as it doesn't involve soliciting help.
I've found the current attitude toward discussing Nix or Nix-adjacent topics in #Nix Offtopic to be rather polarizing and exclusionary, making it difficult to feel comfortable while engaging in the Nix community overall. Some people don't have the time or aren't invested enough in the Nix community to warrant creating an account to participate on the discourse forums, and I feel that be laxing the restriction on discussing on-topic subjects in #Nix / NixOS may help address that issue without having to take extreme measures such as creating a seperate channel for Nix discussion or rebranding the current into one made explicitly for tech support.
| 14:52:17 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | Falaichte: do you know of #dev:nixos.org? | 14:53:25 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | In reply to@piegames:matrix.org
Falaichte: do you know of #dev:nixos.org? I don't really do much development, so it didn't really occur to me to go looking in there. | 14:54:06 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | I just know that trying to maintain a somewhat normal conversation in #Nix / NixOS is difficult because of the frequency of people asking for help and that the aversion to discussing Nix or Nix adjacent topics in #Nix Offtopic had been somewhat perplexing in light of this issue. | 14:55:04 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | I would like to bring up the current conventions of off-topic versus on topic and their relation to #Nix / NixOS and #Nix Offtopic in particular. I have found that it can be quite difficult to speak on-topic in #Nix / NixOS without having any discussion become buried beneath support requests.
Therefore it is not conductive to discuss on-topic subjects in that room in the manner you would expect in a channel on an instant messaging platform. To this end, I would appreciate if the governance of Nix as a platform may reconsider allowing the discussion of on-topic subjects in #Nix Offtopic, so long as it doesn't involve soliciting help.
I've found the current attitude toward discussing Nix or Nix-adjacent topics in #Nix Offtopic to be rather polarizing and exclusionary, making it difficult to feel comfortable while engaging in the Nix community overall. Some people don't have the time or aren't invested enough in the Nix community to warrant creating an account to participate on the discourse forums, and I feel that by laxing the restriction on discussing on-topic subjects in #Nix / NixOS may help address that issue without having to take extreme measures such as creating a seperate channel for Nix discussion or rebranding the current into one made explicitly for tech support. | 14:56:29 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I understand your problem with discussing things in the Nix main channel, however moving them into the Offtopic room is not a solution either IMO | 14:57:35 |
 Alyssa Ross | Wouldn't it make more sense to have a different room, rather than making "offtopic" a misnomer? | 14:58:21 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | In reply to@qyliss:fairydust.space
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a different room, rather than making "offtopic" a misnomer? That would require a lot more discussion, thought and ultimately effort put in for an issue that evidently only one person seems to have. | 14:58:54 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I think that's precisely the reason why #dev:nixos.org exists | 14:58:58 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | Or at the very least has vocalized as being an issue. | 14:59:03 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | In reply to@piegames:matrix.org
I think that's precisely the reason why #dev:nixos.org exists As I've mentioned prevously, I don't do development so I didn't think to go looking there. I think most people trying to look for Nix related discussion in a casual capacity wouldn't think to look there or might be put-off by the name or nature of the channel. | 14:59:54 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | As its implication assumes that you would be intimately familiar with Nix and its systems, where that might not simply be the case. | 15:00:15 |
| Alyssa Ross | Other people have complained about this before, it's not just you | 15:00:17 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | In reply to@qyliss:fairydust.space
Other people have complained about this before, it's not just you That's definitely not the impression I got yesterday. | 15:00:29 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | It was quite alienating. | 15:00:34 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I wasn't suggesting to go to this room, just saying that we already split out rooms for more specialized discussion to keep the main room more managable | 15:00:33 |
| Alyssa Ross | But making a new room is easy. I don't see why it needs to require a lot more discussion than a rule change. | 15:00:35 |
| Alyssa Ross | Have a look in the history of #matrix-discussion:nixos.org. | 15:00:53 |
| Alyssa Ross | And you'll find that it's been brought up before. | 15:01:12 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Speaking of which, maybe let's continue over there? | 15:01:15 |
| @falaichte:techsaviours.org | Thought to mention it here because someone insisted that it was a matter of policy. | 15:01:37 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Policy yes, but not on a Governance level IMO | 15:02:23 |
|  @mjm:beeper.com left the room. | 16:24:55 |
|  @lillecarl:matrix.org left the room. | 16:49:19 |
|  Soispha joined the room. | 16:53:59 |
 @zimbatm:numtide.com | I don't think we formalized it, but it would make sense to delegate this decision to the moderation team since they are managing the Matrix server already. piegames is part of that team so it's all good. | 19:46:59 |
 tomberek | I don't understand that example. Flakes did not build on a shared vision and were implemented without an agreed upon goal. Often criticized for not taking into account community consensus.
In fact, that was a situation that would have benefited from people explicitly stating their goals and vision, rather than it remaining implicit in the implementation. | 20:13:50 |
| 7c6f434c | If RFC process should have taught us anything, it is that there is never as truly shared vision, and there cannot be. So Flakes were built on a somewhat shared vision of a relatively large part of the project, which needed to stay vague to stay shared, obviously | 20:20:27 |
| 7c6f434c | A typical passed RFC looks like a search for a least-disliked outcome, not most-liked. Even local goals are never actually aligned and won't be aligned. Global goals and vision can only serve to fragment. | 20:22:17 |
