Hi @tomberek,
Could you actually provide an answer that you have read and heard what I said, and the concerns I highlighted previously?
First of all, I never retracted or intended to retract the request for opting-out. While it might have been made mistakenly, it ultimately is not an error. I would, and do, intend to request that all of my intellectual property is opted-out of the data set.
Will you make it clear in your communications with them that I have explicitly said that I am not retracting my request? Because as it stands, your last message implies you think you have the authority to make the call on my behalf, and have decided to overrule my action.
I will add that I believe that your course of action was improper.
You should have stopped at “adding this to the SC agenda”, it was unnecessary to be proactive. If you had only added to the SC agenda that you needed to discuss the issue, it would have been fine. But now you have gone and made an explicit decision. This is not restorative, the status quo was not restored. Now an action was taken in the name of the project and contributors. Despite the wishes of at least one contributor, and I suspect many more.
While having the weight of the SC still wouldn’t make me happy about whether or not the project should leave itself be in such datasets, it would at least come from a source of authority, which I would respect, and not an arbitrary unilateral decision.
But Nixpkgs isn’t my main concern. I’ll take it or leave it, I did stepped-down, after having been clearly told that my contributions were not valued compared to substantially small monetary contributions of literally anyone.
Now, do I need to remind you that you have seriously overstepped your authority here, @tomberek?
While there is a tenuous “organizational” claim you could be making about the ofborg-viewer repository, you are not a copyright holder, I am the only copyright holder of the ofborg-viewer. (With exception to the packaging done by Graham while we were setting that up, and that is minor and separate from the core implementation. The other two fixes wouldn’t cross some significance criteria.)
As such, and as the copyright holder, I am asking that you confirm that you have understood that I have not retracted the request to opt-out, that I will, for the foreseeable future, opt-out of the project being included in training data set, and don’t intend to opt-it-in.
And where you definitely have crossed a line is the nix-review-tools repository. While the organization has, AFAIUI, now been made a part of the NixOS project outright, I would expect the repositories are still owned and operated by their owners, as was the case beforehand.
Especially since in the case of nix-review-tools, not only am I the copyright holder, but as I’ve learned by looking at it to see what was up with it, there is no license for the project. (And it is the case mainly because this was initially published from a pile of hacks for the benefit of friendly collaborators.) So while the previous users had an implicit tacit agreement about being able to use it, neither you personally, nor the organization, nor the community, have any claims to make about it and acting on its behalf.
Then, there’s the whole question of the repositories in which my code is a meaningful part, or was the major or a large part of at some point. Those were still in the status quo, as they didn’t end-up in the accidental inclusion. I still am at a loss about how to get my request heard.
At the risk of escalating this, I now also have formulated this additional question:
How will all of you @tomberek, the SC, and the NixOS organization, ensure that such decisions and actions that are made on behalf of contributors respect the wishes of each of the people involved?