Do you? You seem to be painting the people in favor of the status quo as people that just want the community to get along, while everyone that complains is the real problem.
Also, what exactly is “aggressively DEI” supposed to mean? People that are aggressively vocal proponents of diversity, equity, and inclusion? I feel like I am missing something, but why would someone be in opposition to this?
While I certainly don’t claim the “opposing contingent” is necessarily organized around anything but shared opinions, considering that they are more or less by definition on the same side of the politically charged issues in question like the Anduril sponsorship and the efforts to encourage diversity (the latter of which I do not necessarily believe is political, but those opposed appear to), they seem to at least somewhat align politically. Not that the side raising the complaints isn’t, of course, but you can’t really claim political neutrality when taking a stance on a political issue.
Well, I would expect such a contingent to be similarly vocal about their side rather than remaining silent save for a handful.
Fair point. Could you provide some examples of this evidence?
How can you possible think that the lack of an open letter expressing opposition is good evidence that there is not a significant contingent which opposes the sentiments expressed in the one that does exist?
You were apparently too busy elaborating your personal political / culture war preoccupations to bother reading my post, which directly linked to an open letter that does in fact exist.
You’re also conveniently ignoring the other pieces of evidence that do not suit your narrative (e.g. reddit, countless posts here on discord etc.)
Since you presume to speak about my “narrative”, let me spell it out for you myself: I couldn’t care less what random, unknown users on Reddit and Discord think—I care that major contributors to Nix are leaving, and I am considering making that same “dramatic” pull request and walking away myself.
Can you point out where it is exactly that I said something like this? I don’t think I ever used the word majority.
My claim is that there are significant contingents on both sides of the issue, and I think there is ample evidence that this is the case.
Also, what exactly is “aggressively DEI” supposed to mean?
Mainly just the affirmative action for a board seat. Not really a hill I’m interested in dying on, just something that seems to unite this faction. There have also been vague claims about the lack of inclusiveness of the community.
but you can’t really claim political neutrality when taking a stance on a political issue.
What political issue am I taking a stance on? I think you’re making assumptions about me that are probably not accurate. My only position is that I just don’t
You were apparently too busy elaborating your personal political / culture war preoccupations to bother reading my post, which directly linked to an open letter that does in fact exist.
I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I was talking about the fact that the absence of a on open letter that opposes the current open letter being used as evidence that there is not a significant contingent of people that don’t necessarily agree with what is written in said open letter.
Please stop. The point has been made, but this is not productive. The thing we need in this moment is not more open letters. Reach out to me if you’d like to discuss. My ask is that you reconsider if this will help or hurt.
In the naive hope that a fact check might cool things down a bit, this seems to have been distorted somewhere in the game of social media telephone that led you here.
The idea proposed was for a gender minority to be represented in the selection committee for event sponsorships, not on the Foundation board.
(Not that it’s unreasonable to want to see more diversity on the board though!)
No, the point has not been made. Yes, I have personal values on whether we shall be anti-MIC, or whether the current leadership is broken. But amid this time of fear and uncertainty, it’s more important to make the community rest assured the nixpkgs project is here to stay, not to be divided and fade away. I’m not leaving. That is the point.
Again, you aren’t paying attention to the discussion. Open letters for and against “bOtH sIdEs” exist on both the Andruil sponsorship incident and the demand for resignation, and in both cases it is hundreds of signatories vs. one.
I don’t find your comments in this thread constructive. Please stop freighting this discussion with your unrelated political concerns.
There are tons of community members who are against open letters like this entirely though. I count myself among them. I just think the people who want to keep things apolitical don’t really feel the need to pen an open letter.
Read what you have written in this thread @IvanMalison . You have repeatedly brought your political concerns into the discussion: from your alleged “left-wing” bona fides to “DEI”, &c. Your contributions to this thread have been the farthest thing from “apolitical”. It’s silly to go on and on about your political views in the name of “apolitical”.
Neutrality to politics is political, as it is a tacit endorsement of the status quo. Which is, for better or worse, an inherently conservative stance.
The choice to ally the project (however indirectly) with a defense contractor was also political and you can’t unring that bell. The open letter was a response to bringing politics into the larger community discussion, not the start of it.
brought your political concerns into the discussion
I really haven’t. The only view that I’m bringing to this discussion is the view that I would like the governance structures and people in power in this community to have the goal of remaining apolitical to the extent possible.
There’s no political view or value that I actively want the community to embody or represent, other than inclusiveness of as wide a group of people as possible, including both demographic AND political minorities.
Your project is political, not apolitical, because you call for the inclusion of “as wide a group of people as possible” and “political minorities.”
I diametrically oppose your political programme: I refuse to include fascists, white nationalists, racists, and sexists—bigots should not be included, welcome, or tolerated whatever.
This is why I also maintain that a community cannot achieve being apolitical
@IvanMalison I know for sure that you are trying to discuss this in good faith. And I don’t think that your view just automatically implies that you endorse any given political view, because your genuine desire is to strive for being apolitical.
In a global community, it’s likely to be inevitable that genuinely held fundamental world views are hard to reconcile.
So, Ivan, I just want to be careful state that at while I agree with the quote above, I am not trying to imply “therefore, this must mean YOU support X”. Because it is up to you to define what you support or believe.
Maybe there is a way to in some cases try to put aside political perspective. I am willing to try and learn if that is possible.
I also believe that in other cases, it will be better to consider the political impacts, and make the best choice to protect that community such as @nat-418 example above.
It could be that even though it is hard, we actually try to do both as a community, and that will take more talking, listening, trying to integrate out viewpoints reasonably, even though that can be very hard to do.
I am not accusing Ivan of being a fascist or whatever. I am simply saying that I refuse to participate in a community that welcomes, includes, and tolerates bigotry. White nationalists et al. are a “political minority” I think should be refused, silenced, and excluded.