Major Nixpkgs contributor leaving

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.


Point is, I’m not signing any of those letters as I think it’s a mistake we even have them.


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”.


My “contributors leaving” t-shirt thread has people asking a lot of questions already answered by the contributors leaving.


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.


14 posts were split to a new topic: Principle of neutrality

This is not how such things work. I don’t buy that idea of “omission implies comission”.


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.

1 Like

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.


Yes indeed. And I did not think you were trying to accuse him if that at all. I was trying to reflect that while I agree with you 100%, that I did not want Ivan to think that this implies anything, and that I should still be able to try and understand his perspective.

I agree with your statement 1000%

So, I am trying to see if others can agree that there are times when we should be “political” (let’s say not affording the presence of the groups you name) while also times where it may be appropriate to be “apolitical” (no nazis present, or people advocating for them or whatever? Hooray, let’s talk about Nix.)

…for example.

…trying to see if there is common ground between what I agree with and what Ivan is stating.

Definitely not trying to either accuse Ivan of supporting the things you mentioned, nor accuse you of accusing him, etc

1 Like

By now this thread has moved far away from its initial topic, which can of course happen at times, but it is part of the reason we’re closing this topic. The other part is this:

The government related topics have all been centeralized onto the Zulip instance created for this purpose. We are closing topics which carry these topics to force the migration to the platform where we want to iterate on these questions.