In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Agreed. Looking back, having us take a lot of space at NixCon also helped reinforce this notion that we are important / leaders

I actually didn't realize the purpose and nature of the foundation until you discussed it here recently. I worked at flox for 2 years. And from that experience, plus attending NixCon Paris 2022 I thought the foundation did much more than what you and some others have recently detailed (although I was likely wrong in that thinking as you are indicating)

It does help that you keep re-iterating the nature and purpose of the foundation, plus how the "organization" seems to have intended for governance to happen. It does make sense that the purpose and function of the foundation is to hold assets. The foundation would likely be overwhelmed if it actually had to govern the community, or drive the governance. Thanks for clarifying that.

In reply to @samrose:matrix.org

I actually didn't realize the purpose and nature of the foundation until you discussed it here recently. I worked at flox for 2 years. And from that experience, plus attending NixCon Paris 2022 I thought the foundation did much more than what you and some others have recently detailed (although I was likely wrong in that thinking as you are indicating)

It does help that you keep re-iterating the nature and purpose of the foundation, plus how the "organization" seems to have intended for governance to happen. It does make sense that the purpose and function of the foundation is to hold assets. The foundation would likely be overwhelmed if it actually had to govern the community, or drive the governance. Thanks for clarifying that.

Jonas Chevalier: My perception is that when the Foundation was rebooted in 2022 that there were several concerns from the community; fear of corporate takeover, resistance to too much governance, hesitance to change the model from the admin-only Board from before. These are the sorts of things that came up in the Q+A and elsewhere. And I suspect that had a part to play in the reboot also reiterating that it would stay in the role of "holding assets".

But the perception might have been that it would do more. Or some people even had that intention or hope - I did. So now there is a disconnect between the expectations. Then the Board is put into a position to take more action than it intended to. It became very un-boring.

So far I'm trying to see if this perception is roughly accurate. If so, then I would strive to ensure that any other reboot avoids similar confusions.

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Agreed. Looking back, having us take a lot of space at NixCon also helped reinforce this notion that we are important / leaders

In reply to @zimbatm:numtide.com
Agreed. Looking back, having us take a lot of space at NixCon also helped reinforce this notion that we are important / leaders

In reply to @nat-418:nat-418.xyz
I keep coming back to this question of "what is the community and how does it decide?" because I perceive the board as having been sucked into the vacuum that samrose described. If contentious issues had a process for collective resolution, then I think there would be less confusion, conflation, and frankly criticism of the board per se: the "boring" work could be freed to be boring.

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
there's an important part missing here; there have been prior attempts at resolving this by trying to improve the RFC process, expecting the board to become involved is the result of those attempts failing (for a variety of reasons that I don't feel like relitigating here)

I do understand what you are referring to. It could be that a new attempt at getting rules, and processes in place could work better, despite many rounds of previous failure. There also have been some successes emerging from all of this too.

There needs to be some rational rules about how to participate in RFC processes, organization discussion, etc

We should at least agree as participants to share responsibility for trying to avoid destructive actions (including massively using up the time of people who volunteer to work in this project). Maybe then people would need to be reminded from time to time that they agreed to try and do this, plus how what they are doing is not being responsible for doing that.

What are the rules and conditions that I should be ok living with, that would help collective processes work better in the nix community?

In reply to @joepie91:pixie.town
last time I attempted to propose such rules, a project member with a significant amount of power started being emotionally abusive with essentially no consequences, so forgive me if I do not really feel like entertaining the "just talk it out" option

joepie91 🏳️‍🌈: I've been around since 2018, and I have some familiarity, but don't know everything. Definitely not trying to negate you, nor do I seek to take space away from you in the discussion now.

If the board were able to do the kinds of things we discuss here, that includes sound ways to make sure we don't destroy shared resources (tangible or intangible) and make the community more comfortable for people in the ways we discuss, I'd be happy personally.

I know from experience helping to see these things through elsewhere, that it will take some time

problems:

effective moderation is based on promoting positive values and leading by example,

Agree. I am not trying to state that rules alone will solve the problem. But from my experience, they will also help