SC meeting 2025-10-15 17:05 UTC
Present SC members: @roberth @tomberek @jtojnar @Ericson2314
Observers (have not expressed opinions): @edef @infinisil
Note/vote recorder: @infinisil
Notes/Votes
- (needs unanimous consensus among present members) Approve @infinisil as observer/note taker
- Approve:
- @tomberek
- @jtojnar
- @roberth
- @Ericson2314
- @edef (courtesy vote)
- Absent:
- Conclusion: Approved
- Approve:
- (needs unanimous consensus among present members) For publishing the full meeting notes (except private/sensitive info):
- Approve:
- Absent:
- Conclusion: Approved
- Nixpkgs core team
- @tomberek: Anything to discuss?
- @Ericson2314: Pinged them in channel
- (later): @Ericson2314: Got response from @alyssais, nothing needed
- @tomberek: Not much to discuss without @winter
- @Ericson2314: Their meeting notes on Discourse looked good
- On-going conflict
- @tomberek: Something to do or resolve with time?
- @Ericson2314: Quiter last week, relieved
- @tomberek: There appears to be enough self-moderation for it to not go out of control. Existing moderation with @lassulus is keeping things in check
- @Ericson2314: Heard others say this as well
- @tomberek: Something to do or resolve with time?
- @tomberek: SC handoff how/when, access/notes/reports, first-time this is needed
- @Ericson2314: Would think we can share all private materials with new SC, no exceptions come to mind
- @jtojnar: we might need to do a review to be safe
- @Ericson2314: Agreed, private meeting notes won’t be that hard since they’re not long
- @tomberek: What couldn’t be shared?
- @Ericson2314: Perhaps if somebody privately issued a complaint about a new SC member
- @jtojnar: things shared with us in confidence not explicitly open for future SCs
- @Ericson2314: In future should ask people if information is current-SC-private or also-future-SC-private
- @jtojtnar: Traffic light protocol might be useful
- @tomberek: Meeting notes in a hedgedoc and repo
- Freescout
- @Ericson2314: Easy
- Zulip
- @Ericson2314: Painful
- @infinisil: Zulip can be set to private, protected history: Joining and viewing messages requires being invited; users can only view messages sent while they were subscribed
- @roberth: Can that be reverted?
- @infinisil: No, consent
- @tomberek: Zulip is for internal communications. Was also used to gather votes, but those are also recorded in meeting notes
- @roberth: Not always true, some votes were put up but didn’t get enough attention
- @tomberek: What to do later? Have cleaner delineation, discussions vs notes/votes
- Non-conclusive, needs more thought
- SC transition when?
- @jtojnar: voting ends on 1st, how long will it take for EC to publish results
- @jtojnar: last time there was an issue with the election software, hopefully it will be okay this time
- @Ericson2314/@tomberek: Constitution doesn’t mention when inauguration happens
- @tomberek: Never was made into a proper ritual, might make sense to establish that
- @Ericson2314: Have a meeting with union of old and new SC, as well as EC, with EC presiding over ceremony, “offboards” retiring members, “onboards” new members
- @tomberek: That sounds great
- @jtojnar: voting ends on 1st, how long will it take for EC to publish results
- Offboarding checklist
- Discourse admin (@jtojnar)
- GitHub admin (@winter)
- Zulip admin/channel access
- Matrix?
- Nothing was done, but maybe should’ve been
- Freescout
- GitHub team
- Website update
- Historical SC membership record?
- @Ericson2314: Currently org repo mentions to check the repo
- @roberth: Mentioned in election repos but not convenient
- @Ericson2314: EC should make a call, imo historical members should be in the org repo
- @jtojnar: Links pointing to past election repos
- @infinisil: Bootstrap governance page by thilobillerbeck · Pull Request #1864 · NixOS/nixos-homepage · GitHub is being worked on right now, lists past elections on website
- Internal repo access
- @tomberek: Even if we redact some parts, they can get published by SC members regardless. Should there be some clear policy to maintain SC confidentiality?
- @roberth: Don’t need to redact much, only when privacy of others is at risk
- @tomberek: Still not okay to publish internal SC matters, breach of trust. Why talk about redacting when everything can get released anyways? What if somebody dumps everything in public? Allow/condemn?
- @tomberek: We’re getting consent to publish meeting notes, but we had a recent incident where something was published without consent
- @jtojnar: I guess, after redaction, we could make everything public, if we get agreement of the SC. There should not be anything sensitive remaining
- @Ericson2314: This matter is a different one than the incident, we should care more about the SC transition
- @roberth: We could share our thoughts with the new SC and let them decide how they want to handle this info
- @Ericson2314: Different kind of redactions
- @jtojnar: yeah, I think Tom’s point is that new SC may contain a hostile actor, so we must consider whatever we pass over to the new SC anyway
- @tomberek: Somewhat yeah. Odd to go through redactions, but if we’re inconsistent when consent is required vs. not, something’s off
- @Ericson2314: Don’t think we’ll have hostile actors, traffic light protocol kept, norms
- @tomberek: Having a practice of meeting notes being public is a good valve, good step
- @Ericson2314: Good to agree to publish meeting notes in advance, rather than needing to redact them afterwards
- @jtojnar: The distinction is that if our privacy is violated, it only affect us. If we share third party’s comments we are breaking their privacy
- @Ericson2314: +1
- Budget approval for mediator
- @tomberek: Last time deferred, there’s sufficient involved people willing to participate that it makes sense to fund
- @jtojnar: Unsure how mediation will help before the new SC members are inaugurated
- @tomberek: Point of mediation is not to judge or what happened, but how we proceed
- @jtojnar: Not sure how it makes sense to deciding without new SC members when they could completely change direction
- @tomberek: Not everybody has to participate, we can approve the funding regardless
- @Ericson2314: If new SC decides that it’s a waste of funding, can be canceled
- @Ericson2314: Being able to relieve @lassulus would be great
- @Ericson2314: Board seems okay with using funding for this
- @roberth: Mediation phases: First phase interpersonal → second phase new moderation setup
- Second part won’t get done until the new SC is in
- So right now it’s mostly about interpersonal, which is beneficial, allows us to better collaborate as community members for years to come with less distrust
- So approving this budget is really just for this first part
- @jtojnar: we do not know what the new SC will do. If they decide to cancel that, all the effort would be wasted, so it would not just be waste of time but also fiduciary irresponsibility
- @Ericson2314: First phase is worth it in itself
- (needs majority) Vote to approve the budget spent so far:
- Approve:
- Absent:
- Conclusion: Approved
- (needs majority) Vote to approve the budget for the next 2 weeks:
- Approve:
-
- Initially voting to “Reject”.
- @jtojnar: Further funding for this should go through new SC
- @tomberek: Unfair to people that want to work together to get out of this situation
- @jtojnar: I mean if the Board is fine with the possibility that the money will be wasted, I won’t stand in the way. not saying the outcome is even probable
- @infinisil: Word with board hat: Community health is most important right now, no issue at all to use funding for this. Asked SC for proposal and approval because it’s a community matter.
- @jtojnar: Will reconsider, later today, in 1 or 2 hours
- @Ericson2314: Can delay publishing of notes until then
- Async: @jtojnar updated to vote “Approve”.
- Reject:
- Absent:
- Conclusion: Approved
- Approve:
- (@jtojnar has to leave)
- Similar budget proposal for moderation advisor
- @tomberek: Expect similar outcome as the above
- @Ericson2314: Would like this to come out of mediation, what people feel good about
- @tomberek: Then defer this, can prepare something for a later decision
- @Ericson2314: Could also consider sharing statement of work with mediator