| 29 Nov 2023 |
 delroth | e.g. when I still worked at Google, every hour of my free time I spent volunteering for a nonprofit could be matched by a $10 donation by my employer, up to $200/year. No documentation required or anything. Which is basically free money when you already spend those hours contributing to an FOSS project backed by a foundation. | 13:05:59 |
| delroth | (this came up because we realized with some friends attending the ZHF Hackathon in Zürich that them attending the event and marking it for volunteering time matching would reimburse on their own 60% of the budget that was provided by the foundation for the event..) | 13:06:52 |
| delroth | * (this came up because we realized with some friends attending the ZHF Hackathon in Zürich that them attending the event and marking it for volunteering time matching would reimburse on its own 60% of the budget that was provided by the foundation for the event..) | 13:08:49 |
 Eelco | Yes I registered with Benevity (and renewed our registration a few weeks ago). But we've never received donations that way so I don't know if it works. | 13:14:18 |
| delroth | some should be on their way now, so I guess that will be the test run :) | 13:14:58 |
| delroth | thanks for confirming! | 13:15:02 |
|  thoth left the room. | 13:36:36 |
|  winston joined the room. | 17:49:07 |
 fricklerhandwerk | We may want to link that on the donations page. | 23:42:29 |
| delroth | unlikely to be useful, in my experience people don't directly go to benevity, they get to it via their company's internal docs - I wouldn't even know how to log into it otherwise (SSO etc.) | 23:44:06 |
| fricklerhandwerk | Well, we could tell people to check whether their company supports that. | 23:46:08 |
| fricklerhandwerk | Putting a prominent item there shouldn't hurt | 23:46:24 |
| 5 Dec 2023 |
|  Federico Damián Schonborn changed their profile picture. | 00:38:17 |
| 9 Dec 2023 |
|  Salar Rahmanian (softinio) changed their profile picture. | 05:19:00 |
| 10 Dec 2023 |
 @joepie91:pixie.town | briefly wanting to draw attention to https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/273220 -- which is effectively a policy change proposal going outside of the RFC process (going from a disputed unwritten policy to an explicit policy constitutes a policy change), and in light of wanting to move towards a community governance model, I do not think it is viable to merge this if nobody wishes to start an RFC for it | 20:19:16 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (as it is not much of a community governance model if one can simply decide to bypass the RFC process and merge it anyway) | 20:19:53 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | (I do not currently have a strong opinion on the proposal itself, because there's a lot of missing motivation etc. - this is purely about the "bypassing RFC process" aspect of it) | 20:21:21 |
 raitobezarius | Just to be clear, I'm not going to merge it no matter how many approvals it gain. | 20:21:24 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | ah. I assumed it was still on the table, due to it being locked rather than closed | 20:21:44 |
| raitobezarius | The lock is, as you can surmise, related to the heatness of the debate | 20:22:06 |
| raitobezarius | I will just mention for the record that requiring that every such change goes through RFC seems to me a great way to burnout people in this attempt of building a community governance model | 20:23:47 |
| raitobezarius | If we proceeded with RFC, I'd rather consider the generalized problem induced by this situation | 20:24:11 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | I expect that a great deal of the friction here comes precisely from it not being an RFC; both because of the missing detail regarding motivation and alternatives, and because of the "this is happening" tone that a PR has | 20:24:32 |
 Artturin | Dunno why that change is so controversial as requiring a github account to contribute is already necessary | 20:24:40 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | a big part of the RFC process is to avoid this sort of conflict by clearly setting out rationales from the start, to more easily reach consensus | 20:24:50 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | now half the story is missing, people are left to guess that missing half, that leads to wrong assumptions, suspicions, conflicts, etc. | 20:25:21 |
| raitobezarius | Recently, I wrote an RFC for something and I was told that RFC was not the right place to do it because it was for controversial stuff, and it ended up being controversial | 20:25:27 |
| Artturin | An rfc would be to allow non github contributions | 20:25:34 |
| raitobezarius | And right now, I am doing this seemingly trivial change in my eyes regarding this data and now this is regarded as very controversial and the discussion has been very unpleasant on my side | 20:25:54 |
| @joepie91:pixie.town | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
Recently, I wrote an RFC for something and I was told that RFC was not the right place to do it because it was for controversial stuff, and it ended up being controversial could you link me? I'm curious what happened there, because there's rarely a reason to reject something being an RFC, in the simplest case everybody agrees and it passes with barely any discussion | 20:26:32 |
