| 20 Mar 2023 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
I haven't answered this, here's my opinion: I do think the Nix ecosystem at large is lacking a vision of where it wants to go. And I think this is why Nixpkgs is such a mess today, it's the accumulation of a decade of various people pulling it in various directions. The primary goal of this team is to reconcile that, to try to make it not a mess anymore. But a secondary goal for me is to actually give Nixpkgs a vision for the future. And yes, having a vision means being opinionated and actually pulling off that vision requires having some authority over Nixpkgs. My hope is that the community is decently represented in this team so that we can be trusted with actually doing reasonable things. I'm not convinced that achieving these goals requires authority over Nixpkgs; it is also possible to drive changes by taking the time to convince the stakeholders.
At least, there should be compelling arguments on why is this necessary to hand over "authority over Nixpkgs" and what do we lose by doing this vs. the current model and what do we obtain with this model. | 20:48:07 |
 Alyssa Ross | We didn't say we wanted to do it as "The Rust Team", even though it could have been done that way. Instead, the proponents all just spoke as themselves, and I think that's more conducive to an inclusive discussion. I don't want to get into a Teams arms race where we form explicit factions with collective opinions. | 20:49:32 |
 infinisil | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I'm not convinced that achieving these goals requires authority over Nixpkgs; it is also possible to drive changes by taking the time to convince the stakeholders.
At least, there should be compelling arguments on why is this necessary to hand over "authority over Nixpkgs" and what do we lose by doing this vs. the current model and what do we obtain with this model. Well it's only the architecture this team is about, it's not involved in e.g. how packages/modules should be added/updated. It doesn't make sense for it to have authority over the entirety of Nixpkgs. I think it should be more of a "if you want to make changes to these specific files, somebody from the NAT should review it", I guess kind of like code owners | 20:55:58 |
| Alyssa Ross | That sounds a lot more reasonable, but it wouldn't include e.g. the Rust proposal | 20:56:40 |
| Alyssa Ross | I think it's fine for the NAT to have a more authoratative voice abotu stuff it was responsible for or heavily involved in. | 20:56:58 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
That sounds a lot more reasonable, but it wouldn't include e.g. the Rust proposal Well technically increasing significantly the size of nixpkgs could be considered as architecture of nixpkgs | 20:57:03 |
