This doesn’t matter for the principle of my argument. He has received a mandate from the electorate, that some people are upset does not change that. People can protest, right, but they can also show support. He has my support.
12 Likes
For what little it’s worth, I voted for you, I signed this letter.
4 Likes
I would understand stepping down from the SC as self-care, and if I were you I would seriously be considering it. But I hope you don’t step down because you feel like the various accusations made in these recent threads have any merit. This is just sad, hardball electioneering.
15 Likes
Since the last update yesterday, an additional 9 signatures have been added above:
- awwpotato, Nixpkgs maintainer
- drakon64, Nixpkgs maintainer
- getchoo, Budgie and GNOME Circle teams, Nixpkgs committer
- jackr, Nixpkgs maintainer
- lf-, Nixpkgs committer, Lix core team
- lheckemann, Release Manager for 19.03 and 19.09, ex-Nixpkgs committer
- nadir-ishiguro, Nixpkgs maintainer
- paumr, Nixpkgs maintainer
- Zimmi48, Nixpkgs committer
We are now at 72 signatures. I am still adding new signatures as they come in, of course.
I have talked to multiple SC members, there is currently no movement on the deadlock situation.
3 Likes
A statement of why I oppose a full re-election:
I said most of this a month ago.
I’ve heard from some who do not want to get involved due to the potential of being targeted by a public mob. This possibility affected their actions. Paraphrasing: “I don’t really care too much about XYZ, but I can’t take the personal or professional risk to be the center of controversy.” This means fear has become the deciding factor or at least that it is not worth the risk or their time. This is rational behavior by any individual and I do not blame anyone for it. But we must be clear; this is a failure. I’m sad to say this is a failure of the community leadership, including myself, to protect people from bullying behavior, from the fear of being targeted by a mob stirred up by a few people intent on causing chaos and drama, who then point to that very chaos as the justification for creating more of it. Instead, we are setting the standard that the community uses established mechanisms for governance, not the court of social media and not the volume of passionate rabble-rousing.
I was optimistic at that time. I am still trying to be optimistic. This is another variant of the same problem. We have seen any group of leaders we have become targeted and pressured until the stress breaks them. Look at the previous Board. Look through the history. From Eelco to Domen, Jonas, and Theophane. The SC just went through the same kind of targeting. Each person is put under pressure, receives open-letters, or campaigns of harassment, or undermined and then gaslit about it. The only escape is to resign or acquiesce. Then the attention goes to the next target. Are we to believe that they all were so flawed as to deserve all that pressure? The moderation teams have also had immense churn. Usually they didn’t have such targeted attacks hosted and amplified on official platforms (because those got moderated, thankfully), but they have had to deal with all the toxicity, which leads towards a large amount of stress, mental pressure, burnout, and finally frustration to give up.
For the recent attack on John; are we to believe that in the space of less than an hour or two and with incomplete information people are coming to reasonable judgements? Attaching names to a doc is a commitment strategy that discourages further review. Swept up by the whirlwind and passions, the mob is stirred up and then we are driven by fear yet again. And then the mob uses the chaos that it itself just caused, to decry the legitimacy of its target?
No. This is unjust. This is wrong. This leads to the very same outcome and history will repeat itself. Because there is no set of perfect leaders without flaws. The crowd has burned out many of the good ones; even the ones who could find ways to productively disagree, but who could work together on the one thing we should be here for. Again, I do not blame anyone who is calling for this. It is almost assuredly not malicious. But it is misguided and misled.
I know I have some minority opinions, but I am willing to concede quite a bit and compromise. I’ve abided by all decisions we made as an SC. That is how representative democracy works, it is the structure the NCA set up. It is the “hold outs” that have not gone back on their word or broken trust. The semi-yearly outrage behavior is shameful and having the targets of it simply walk away to offer the crowd a victory only encourages this to happen again the next time; it becomes normalized. A full reset and ongoing electioneering and manipulation means we end up with another set of 7 people, representative of the various groups, who distrust one another and will need to spend months to build it back up, but now they have even more pressure on them. By having SC continuity you at least have some stability over the long-term.
I will not reward such behavior, no matter who it is targeted at or what the motive is. The behavior is wrong, no matter the intention.
I am willing to discuss this with anyone and answer questions or discuss. Several of you have reached out, thank you.
75 Likes
Hm. I’m afraid the answer will probably be “many of those things”, probably as many of them as there are people in the community.
I am not a fan of symbolism and urgency in this. But, to me, the problem is likely not individual people on the SC but the group, how it functions, and how things started to go wrong (for example, the speaking as a single voice thing). In this sense, I think continuity might well be counterproductive. That would be the biggest reason why I’d perhaps wish to see the SC be fully elected (not meaning that the current members couldn’t be reelected; I’m not a fan of such bans). It feels like the less risky choice of two risky choices.
On the other hand, there certainly is some accumulated wisdom, even from what ended up rightly or wrongly perceived as mistakes. In that sense, I guess if the new members are strong enough to change the culture, it just might be helpful to have someone there who was there before.
Unless people manage to agree well enough what went wrong and change it. Then… I don’t think it necessarily takes the right people. Just good people. Which I suspect almost all of you are, even when we have a tendency to see enemies everywhere.
If the views of the community have changed a lot, I would argue that having 29% of the seats from a previous election seems quite material. Perhaps even more so after a tumultuous journey where some have quit. (I’m not taking a position on what you should do here, in either direction. But I’m not envious of you for needing to make that decision.)
Could the system have been engineered so that the continuity comes in the form of more “emeritus wisdom”? Would one member continuity be enough continuity? It feels much less risky than two, in some ways, unless the remaining one is… wrong. 
What if the election rules were such that they would guarantee one member of the previous SC being elected, if any are running?
Then there would be one minimally distrusted person in the SC to carry over wisdom. Perhaps wearing a funny hat and a lambda shaped stick to remind people that they chose to distrust that person less than some others. (Also because Nix doesn’t look weird enough to outsiders yet.)
1 Like
While I highly disagree with most of your views in general I respect in general your view on this topic.
I would love to see all of us to at least try to understand and acknowledge the opposing views and rationals behind each others decisions. I think it is good that we have people asking for a full reelection. I think it is good that we have people asking for the remaining members to stay.
The thing I’m missing is the acknowledgment on both sides that both sides are right. Now we can spin the wheel of saying „but I’m right“ but that will probably leave us with everyone loosing. We could on the other hand also accept that everything has been said (I do think we are at this point right now as I rarely see new arguments and views coming up).
So maybe we can move on to the election and focus just on choosing the people we think are right for the job. They are the ones the can really make a difference and learn from all the diverse views that have been brought up the last couple of days.
5 Likes
Right now, I agree with @tomberek. The events of the last few days have made me very angry, I won’t deny. But they’ve also made me very afraid. I can hardly sleep. I can hardly work. If any of you calling for the SC’s resignation feel like your own personal lives and bodily rhythms have been similarly disrupted, well, you have my strongest empathy over the last few days being stressful.
I don’t, quite frankly, understand all the politics going on around me. I have some guesses who my “enemies” might be, but I don’t know why they are my enemies, and what they ultimately want. I don’t know if I’m correct for finally seeing them as “out to get me”, or conspiratorial and childish for thinking in those terms at all.
The accusations against me personally feel completely false. I was completely taken off guard by them happening. It felt like a complete shock, and very painful, like being stabbed in the back.
It is possible that I would be open to a mass resignation of the SC, but in order to agree to that, I need to feel safe again. I need to be sleeping normally again. I need to feel sure that this isn’t, as the person above me just wrote, all “hardball electioneering”. Anyone that is willing to coax me there is welcome to DM me, and ideally set up a call to discuss things in real time, with the empathy that audio can provide.
61 Likes
The unjust attempting to interfere with moderation team operation, membership and specific moderation decisions by SC is wrong.
What? The mob?
We are just the community burnt out of it. We just want a safe community.
I am sorry that you cannot sleep normally and feel unsafe.
Most of the moderation member that keep the community safe was removed. I feel unsafe too.
10 Likes
John, I’m very sorry you have to go through this. You were my top vote during last election and I don’t regret it. Please take care of yourself and I hope to see you complete your term with better days than last week.
I’m not eligible to vote in this election, but considering 5 out of 7 seats are up for reelection, newly elected SC can have supermajority if they choose to amend the constitution. And if that happens, I’d very happily accept whatever result comes out of it.
13 Likes
It is their constitutional responsibility to manage teams. They were acting completely within their authority to bring reform to the moderation team
32 Likes
Point of fact:
The mods were not removed (with the exception of K900 I think).
The mods quit (in rather spectacular fashion, not even a week ago!).
19 Likes
Yes, which was a reasonable and predictable thing for them to do, as I outlined in my comment.
11 Likes
I am sure you can read the arguments that are brought up against you. And you can also see connections to arguments made in the nix space before. Please don’t pretend that you don’t know what you are doing.
On another node. In a full reelection there is a relevant chance that some of the current SC members might be reelected. Take the chance to reensure that you have the support of the comunity for your take on governance.
3 Likes
It is similarly unjust to allow people like those in this thread to have any sway over this project. And none of the still-sitting SC seems to have treated it with gravitas it — in my view — requires. Roberth deflected, Ericson declined to respond and you — as much as you can say you are a reasonable person and as much as I would’ve likely given you benefit of the doubt in any other circumstances — can you solemnly swear you would choose the good of this project over your employer if they chose to force you into decision you do not agree with by e.g. holding your livelihood over your head? And the recent kerfuffle might seem like a small thing, and in any other context it would’ve likely blown over. But if the SC can’t maintain unity and prefers ad-hoc decision they later postrationalise — which, granted, may be sometimes necessary — over setting up a process that facilitates the outcomes they think are better for the community, then how I can trust that they would’ve stood united and ensure the community is set up to weather *nduril and its ilk?
This is why I think the whole SC should be disbanded and that we, as the community, should vote for people that can ensure hostile actors wanting to wear this project as a body snatcher would are given no quarter. If you think that includes people like the erstwhile moderator team then be my guest, as long as any ins *nduril and its ilk may have into this community are likewise salted until nothing can ever grown here again*.
* — or well, at least until america gets it shit in order and had shown decades of good will again.
For what it’s worth, I’m not here “out to get you”, specifically. I’m not even here out to get Tomberek. If I’m here out to get anything, it’s any avenue *nduril can use to wear this project like a sheep skin to further “american dominance”. There are many things I can stay silent on even if I don’t necessarily agree but for that, I will not stand. Which is why I think SC has to go — not because I feel there already is some conspiracy to take this project over afoot in the SC (which is something I can not know without being a soothsayer), but because the recent SC action had not engendered trust in me that they will stand firm for this community and against *nduril.
I’m sorry for whatever part my posts had in your grief — even if I still think what I said had to be said, I didn’t mean any of this personally. For what it’s worth even though I think the current SC should be disbanded, I don’t necessarily see an issue with you (or Roberth) running again, should you wish to, iff you can convincingly show that on this issue you will stand with the community and not hostile actors, and it convinces the voters.
As for Tomberek — or honestly, anyone else running with ties to *nduril — I think what was said in that twitter thread should disqualify all of them. I’m very sorry about this, but I think that’s an existential necessity for the project — they can be great people, they can have best interest of the community (as they perceive it) in mind, but if their employer uses what power they have over them to vote against this community, how can we expect them to stand firm? I wouldn’t begrudge them choosing their livelihood over this project. Which is why they cannot be allowed to run — both for the good of the project and not to force them against a rock and a hard place.
And the same stands for any future hostile actor — someone in some other thread called out names like Exxon or tesla or Boeing, which have their fair share of shady behaviours. But as long as they don’t aim to rule this community for their particular aims, they should be free to participate. Should they become openly hostile as *nduril has, then they should be similarly cauterised from the community.
26 Likes
I disagree. I think that it’s OK for the people in that thread and people like the ones that are in that thread to have a sway over this project. They shouldn’t have more sway than other people or organizations that use Nix, but it’s OK if they have some sway. The people in that thread and people like them potentially have knowledge and expertise that could help make the Nix ecosystem better. They should be allowed to have some sway over the project so that the project can benefit from the knowledge and expertise that they might have.
I disagree. The comments in that thread do not require gravitas. What requires gravitas is the actual wars that are currently being fought.
4 Likes
Okay, I guess the link didn’t go where I wanted it to, so let me repost the most important bit:
Given this response of *nduril CEO to this particular thread, do you still stand by what you said? Do you really feel, that giving people who want to change the NixOS project to be more effective in facilitating america dominating other countries with their military? With cheeto-in-chief capable only of kindergarten-level zero-sum biggest-stick-win thinking and renaming DoD to Department of War, so that — this is Palmer Luckey again, slightly paraphrased to fit the flow of the sentence — we can get a warrior class excited to enact violence on other in pursuit of good aims? When those “good aims” is literally dominating the world?
If you still think people like that should have sway over how this project is governed, then I hope you also didn’t mind when the mod team banned people because they were not in line enough with their leftist views. Because you can’t have one or the other and have a consistent, neutral position.
I am not saying that people working at such a company should be barred from contributing. Neither I am saying they should be barred from participating in the community, as long as they behave respectfully within project spaces. I even think it should be okay to accept money from companies like that in order to fund the project, if they can live with the caveat this has to be a purely philanthropic donation they get nothing in return for — at least it’s a better use of the money than more drones.
But any position that has any influence on how this project governs itself, should be out of question for them and any people employed there, for the duration of their employment. They should be free to accept those roles again, should they ever change employers. It should be a general rule that should be followed equally should any external actor becomes hostile to the projects self-sovreignty.
21 Likes
We are all human, and to enable us all to be the very best we can be, we should all be given the opportunity to be heard, to learn, to improve, be forgiven, and to move on.
Dear John. If you truly believe no personal wrong doing then I advice you, regardless of what me and the others in this letter have demanded, that you stay and let the next SC figure out what truly transpired and decide on how to deal with it. There are several nominees whom I fully trust and would support where they to declare this to be a misunderstanding or even just more nuanced. If that is the case then I declare here and now that I will with egg on my face stand in full public support.
5 Likes
I cross-checked with Wolfgang before agreeing to put my name under the petition: the call is very explicitly not meant as a sign of distrust to any individuals. The wording is formal, it only suggests “we think it’s better to disband and re-elect now”
I signed the petition and this had precisely nothing to do with Peder’s admittedly emotional and “yellow” headline.
Meaning, it doesn’t?
Bhghghgh I ain’t no “crowd”, Tom, and this ain’t no battle?
Yup, we keep burning people out, it’s no good. Would be nice if, when people walk away from a role, they could walk away not burnt out. Fulfilled maybe. That said, my hunch is right now is a reasonable time to iterate fast and try different forms of social organization.
My reading of the call is: “we tried it with daddy Robert and daddy Tom overlooking this new SC’s decisions, and the engine sounds odd; let’s abort and see what happens if we run this thing without the adults in the room”. My bet: we stand nothing to lose. Today, the SC still doesn’t matter at all: decisions are, as they were, made by individuals, regardless of titles and rituals. It could be made to matter some. I, personally, do not want the SC to matter, but I’m willing to see people, who believe they could use it to make things suck less, have a go at it.
We’re boiling in the same kettle, we all. I don’t worry about continuity. We’re continuous, we’re smooth, we’re maybe even constant. For Pete’s sake, we literally copied the parliament model, whose only purpose is to prevent change from ever happening.
P.S. @tomberek You, Robert, John, as well as Winter, jtojnar, Gaby, and Cafkafk were my top votes last year, IIRC.
14 Likes
This needs to be bolded and pinned everywhere.
This democracy LARP was completely unneeded and harmful from the start. During the Zulip discussions, this has been pointed out time and time again, by different people. However, there were people who wanted to push for “democracy”, pushed for parliament model, and also pushed for a voting model that puts different “camps” into the same parliament: this was explicitly stated as the goal, to have members of SC debate each other out and see what wins on the “marketplace of ideas”.
I shall not name those people, because they are not the point. The point is that this outcome was entirely predictable, predicted, and realized. The SC was fundamentally built to prevent change from ever happening. The SC model itself was harmful. Worrying about “continuity” this or “voter representation” that only perpetuates this harm.
Still, the sad reality of the situation is that SC has power and (some semblance of) legitimacy. For this reason, I call for full re-election: I see the present SC hold on to the harmful democracy LARP, and I don’t trust it to stop perpetuating that harm. If it can’t, then I ask it to move out of the way and give power to people who are willing to enact change even in face of all those structural difficulties.
6 Likes