You and wombat either have serious trouble understanding the concepts of grammatical tense (hint: past tense), strictly monotonous progression of time (hint: time stamps), and how both of these work together; or you are deliberately just bringing up the same things over and over again, even attempting to shift unrelated topics into that direction.
Please make up your mind which of these is the case, and then stop acting so ridiculously innocent.
I will not accept such ad-hominem and I demand an apology. Pls make your point clear.
Now you are just miss-representing the facts. RFC 49 was not about pushing flakes, it was about formalizing the flake format. The consensus was that at that point to continue the flake experiment for an undefined period of time and reopen the RFC process once people feel more familiar with it to form opinions. That is why, until this day, flakes are hidden behind the experimental features flag.
The reason why flakes are everywhere is that the Nix user base fond them compelling enough to adopt them at large is because they found this feature so useful they decided to adopt even though it was just experimental. The was no obvious abuse of power here that pushed people for adoption, the opposite is true. NIxpkgs and NixOS refer to channels first and foremost in their documentation, making what I can only assume is a conscious effort to dance around the fact that flakes are becoming the new standard.
I struggle do see what your actual overall point is in this conversation, but please stop to derail it further.
Being right just for the purpose of being right serves no purpose at all, even if it were true.
Hm, was this actually the case? I wasnât following closely at that point, but what I see is:
Shepherd team has unanimously agreed to accept the RFC.
Then, FCP got restarted
Then, the shepards team reached consensus that the RFC is Ok-ish, and that we donât need an RFC for experimental features:
As I recall it, the concensus in the last meeting was that:
- Experimental features donât require RFCs
- We do not concensus on what the final form of flakes should look like in, or perhaps even roughly what it should like
- Itâs best best to try to reach it empirically, via the unstable feature.
- Some people wanted to merge the RFC (amended to make the above clear) anyways. The rest had no objection.
And then the RFC was closed with flakes remaining experimental feature until today.
What was the intended effect of this post?
If you are talking about voting patterns between red and blue parties, or similar sophistry we find among some more vocal people, I can agree.
The problem with this position is that it is contradictory. âOpen sourceâ is, has always been, and always will be, inherently political.
This typically happens because people flag the posts. Discourse will hide them once sufficient flagging has happened, and the number is quite low - trust status requirements prevent most abuse of the system, and a post being hidden isnât a particularly big penalty anyway.
Unsurprisingly, this happens more to unpopular views, the average reader is more likely to let something they agree with slide.
Moderators could quite easily ban folks whose opinions they donât like, and outright remove the posts (which happens in some discourse instances, e.g. the elm one). Hiding them would be a hilariously ineffective way to censor you compared to that. I do imagine misattribution of this feature to moderator censorship is part of what has riled folks up so much, unfortunately.
That said, these posts are hidden appropriately, all this discussion is way off-topic from the original post, and as such should be flagged off-topic and hidden, even just according to forum etiquette. Nobody was even talking about politics until like three posts ago, this is just a response to all the brigading (which has since mostly ceased as the freshness of the drama wore off).
If you wish to debate the meaning of âpoliticalâ or whether or which discussions should be permitted in certain circles, move it to a separate, appropriately titled topic. Moderators could do that, but theyâre not very heavy handed with this feature, presumably there arenât enough of them and they probably donât want to encourage these frankly unhealthy discussions.
It would be nice if the mods would sweep thru a bit more often and either remove problematic flagged posts and unhide ones that arenât harmful.
It seems like some sit for several days before any action is taken.
Except it breaks the reading flow, both by requiring an extra action to see the post, and by showing the text in a low-contrast, faded foreground. This is very inaccurate to downplay the relevance of this measure.
An added benefit is that this would make the internal Discourse user flagging trust score (i believe it is called âuser accuracyâ) more accurate. This does mean more immediate work. It does clarify if the moderation team is in agreement or disagreement with the flagging and if they are CoC violations. It forces the decision to be made, which might not be cheap.
@g.p Theyâve been flagged as off-topic (and they very much are) - at least in a cursory glance over the history theyâve all been âoff topicâ or âinappropriateâ - and most of the ones weâve reviewed and accepted have been âoff-topicâ. In practice, theyâve been a mix of both. Continued off-topic posting is unwelcome here.
@tomberek:
I know I generally avoid outright removing posts without good reason (mostly when someone makes a sockpuppet to stoke a fire and we happen to catch it before it succeeds), but thereâs no reason to force someone skimming a thread to read the noise (so the hiding system generally somewhat works if someone wants to catch up on things).
This is essentially âbeing political was ok when I agreed, but not now that I disagreeâ. Hopefully you understand my lack of interest in engaging with that position; youâre going to have to explain why âpoliticsâ in this specific instance shouldnât be included.
Not necessarily.
Having an intersection with politics does not equate with politics or other subset of it, no more that having an intersection with Math implies expertise about Riemann Hypothesis.
Now, you can read this however you like but this entire thread just makes me thinkâŚ
"There is no war in Ba Sing Se "
This is a bit of a strawman, Iâm not saying that all politics should be included, but that thereâs no seemingly valid reason why the ideas of âdonât mistreat people on account of protected characteristicsâ or âdonât explicitly align with organizations that profit off misfortune/deathâ should be excluded from our values.
Hosting a welcoming and thriving community is perfectly in line with the idea of âpeople being able to review and control what executes on their machinesâ, since no one person can do everything themselves. It may not be verbatim in any specific goals stated in the definitions of Open Source or Free Software, but projects worked on by exactly one person in perpetuity are rarely successful. This is simply a logical implication of cooperating with others. The only way you can avoid politics in this sense is by never interacting with another human ever.
âdonât explicitly align with organizations that profit off misfortune/deathâ
So, do we say that the Foundation was also wrong when explicitly asking Amazon for AWS credits for the cache? I would say that workplace safety practices that have lead to many absolutely avoidable and almost predictable deaths in a division that does the same thing day-in-day-out count as profitting off misfortune.
Another part here is of course fungibility of political questions.
Like, what license we pick, and what we count as an attack within our spaces, and do we care at all about expense (monetary: RAM requirements etc.) of using Nix locking out people â this is something non-fungible, it has to be decided here.
Not diverting money from bad organisations to somewhat less bad causes, in terms of effect on the bad organisations, is fungible, in the sense that all publicity is added together and apparently getting rejected as an open-source sponsor doesnât really get picked up widely enough to matter much.
We are not well-suitable for making a difference on fungible matters, and getting suitable for that would actually be detrimental to non-fungible matters like actually updating NixpkgsâŚ
I donât think this is a good framing of the relevant issues. For example,
Not diverting money from bad organisations to somewhat less bad causes, in terms of effect on the bad organisations, is fungible, in the sense that all publicity is added together and apparently getting rejected as an open-source sponsor doesnât really get picked up widely enough to matter much.
The consequential problem of accepting funds from, e.g., the Army of the Russian Federation, would not be principally the effect on the giver but the effect on the community, namely, plunging Nix into debates about geopolitics, making Nix seem hostile to Ukrainian contributors, etc. Good leadership would forsee this division and avert it. In the case of Anduril, poor leadership failed to learn from the first conflict and invited it again.
We are not well-suitable for making a difference on fungible matters, and getting suitable for that would actually be detrimental to non-fungible matters like actually updating NixpkgsâŚ
I hope something everyone involved in Nix governance understands is that the work is principally social. It is the maintenance not of code but of human relations. Nixpkgs suffers every time the community that develops and maintains Nixpkgs is plunged into acrimony. I submit that a major problem in Nix has been conflict avoidance and lack of leadership where conflict resolution and clear leadership were required.
If you donât see how the comparison to AWS is obviously different from partnering publicly with defense contractors then thereâs nothing I can do for you. You are the third person to bring up completely meaningless comparisons and bloviating in my replies in just this thread. I will no longer spend any energy discussing this. Look for attention somewhere else.
This is not about obvious differences, but about principles.
The tacit principles that guide âobvious examplesâ fail (or, more accurately, have undesirable outcomes) when applied to not-so-obvious ones, and pointing the examples are âobviously differentâ is not sufficient.