Trying to put a new mod hat on. I toggled slow mode. I’ll need some time to get an idea on what to do here, but at least for now I can see some people here are trying to soothe the situation: you people have my deepest thanks 
11 Likes
Yes, Jon should get his commit access back - Seems like the time was served so what else is left to discuss?
16 Likes
Yes. He is a good contributor with a long track record.
12 Likes
I do not agree with this suggestion. Forgiveness in a group setting required repentance, repentance for a situation that is public requires public repentance and trust. This does not qualify to those requirements at all, as the behaviour has been doubled down on instead of changed. Unless jonringer becomes a staunch ally, I will not agree to this situation changing and request a higher standard we put the community to for harm, repentance, and healing.
3 Likes
Its clear jonringer has not learnt any lessons from his suspension
EDIT: This wasn’t intended as a “stir the pot”
Why have you titled your reddit post “DRAMA: …” then?
7 Likes
Yes, Jon should get his commit access back - Seems like the time was served so what else is left to discuss?
That is my clear feeling as well.
Had the commit access just been restored silently after the temporary suspension was over, no drama would ever have happened. Same goes for the initial reactions to Jon’s reapplication. None of these were necessary. And some are quite condescending I have to say.
Why have you titled your reddit post “DRAMA: …” then?
I think this happened after the things were already stirring if I see this correctly. Jon’s timeline of events is there.
Other than that @nrdxp made an excellent post earlier that was sadly flagged. This abusive kind of flagging should stop.
Edit:
Link to nrxdp’s post: Should jonringer get his commit bit back? - #10 by nrdxp
Edit 2:
It appears the post that was flagged has been restored, thanks!
9 Likes
He should have his perms back.
The suspension ended and the administrative side or the process failed. Something happend or didnt so that he didnt get them back. It seems like He asked the person in charge to get them back and he wanted an official request, which is nonsense. So a post about this seems justified.
But all the reactions here show, that this might have to be done openly. The Community cant heal if the friction points cant be discussed in the open. There is a real possibility that if he just had requested them as suggested, that there would have been off topic talks on the github, happend before and the answers here are a good indication for that too. So best to have it here instead of the github.
he wanted to do that, but he cant. and give the history of things you cant be mad that he got spooked by this.
10 Likes
Jon, what are you trying to achieve here? To me it seems like you feel like you have been wronged, and you want justice at all costs, and that rage makes you blind for the actual harm your actions are causing.
Half a year ago, when I was moderating a conflict in which you were involved, I believed that you could listen and that you would improve. I did that, despite people who had been harmed by you in the past clearly telling me that this wouldn’t happen anymore. I chose to believe in the good side of people, and I got thoroughly disappointed since then. Even after finally getting a (IMO long overdue and way too short) ban, you choose to continue just the same way as before the moment you got unbanned again.
You like to claim about all the good technical contributions you have done in the past, and which is true. But at some point this will not be able to weigh against the very real social harm you are causing to this community, now and in the past.
13 Likes
Yes he should. His suspension time was served so his status should be restored to the one he had before the suspension.
If a change of status resulting from coming out of a suspension was to happen it should have been logged from the start, so everyone knows what to expect.
12 Likes
My goal with Nix hasn’t changed in 4 years, “Just making Nixpkgs / NixOS the best package repository and Linux Distribution.”
To me it seems like you feel like you have been wronged
I’m not going to dive into the rest of this, as it will likely devolve very quickly, and would like to avoid the “re-litigating” accusation. But I would be open to a face to face discussion about my behavior and the surrounding context in which it was displayed.
5 Likes
And how does this kind of post work towards that end? Same question for the reddit post?
2 Likes
twenty characterssssss
2 Likes
- 14:43:19 PDT: reddit post created.
- 14:47 PDT: Discourse thread created.
- 15:09 PDT: First reply that could possibly be read as “get[ting] shutdown”, indeed, first reply that is not in favour of reinstating your commit bit.
So why did you post to reddit first, without waiting to see what the actual reactions to the Discourse thread would be?
3 Likes
No, not until he proved that he isn’t so drama baiting prone at the very least. Like tbh he just needs to shut up and accept criticism and change as a person.
1 Like
Well, I did intend to do “the right thing” first, which was to move the discussion off of the commit request thread.
But you’re right, looks like the reddit post landed 4 mins before the discourse thread.
So why did you post to reddit first, without waiting to see what the actual reactions to the Discourse thread would be?
Probably me just conceding defeat, and using reddit as an outlet. Discourse should have been a priority, that’s on me. I apologize for acting out of my own fears.
This shouldn’t be an issue in future as I don’t intend to reside in matrix or non-technical discussions moving forward (outside of RFC175).
I also wanted to address @JulienMalka 's comment:
@domenkozar is there a rationale why you decided to reinvite Jon despite the community feedback ? Given the criticality of the commit bit rights on a repo as big and important as nixpkgs, I think we need to build ourselves a better on-boarding process than the current one that seems to be “everybody ends up being invited without consideration for the voice of the community”.
Be it only for matters of software supply chain security, giving commit access to someone that do not have the trust of the community seems very bad to me.
despite the community feedback
The community doesn’t universally condemn me as an individual. Many have reached out through direct messages in support of me taking a stand on certain issues. And the vocality of the community is heavily influenced by who feels empowered to speak.
Be it only for matters of software supply chain security, giving commit access to someone that do not have the trust of the community seems very bad to me.
In my 12,000+ plus reviews, personal PRs, or merge actions, I have never misused that responsibility. I find this insulting that you would insinuate that I would do anything but try to improve a technology I have already invested several thousands of hours of my life improving. I’m a strong advocate of not merging your own PRs, and having two person accountability. But nonetheless, maybe there should be a review of commit bits post xz attack.
What was your goal in saying this? Doing personal jabs just re-inforces that I’m not welcome here and encourages me to do “drama baiting prone” actions on other platforms.
Like tbh he just needs to shut up and accept criticism and change as a person.
What about my person needs to change?
3 Likes
I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt. I tried to.
I guess it’s time to just go ahead and burst the boil.
Jon, you, and the pals at RFC175, are currently the main reason I do not feel welcome in the NixOS community these days.
The continued FUD and push at mounting a case for a conspiracy to “silence” people is… a conspiracy theory that holds no water. There is no such conspiracy. There is no “silencing” of “wrong lean”. There is no “agenda”, other than the one being projected.
The fact the NixOS organization tacitly (among others, via the marketing team leadership) continues associating with an unmoderated place like the subreddit where you continued creating FUD during your time-out due to disruptive behaviour makes me uneasy.
Speaking of, I personally think continuously mounting FUD in public topically-NixOS areas during your time-out should, in itself, have warranted a perma-ban.
And now when you come back, you directly go to the conspiracy theories and throw large amount of FUD. Yikes.
I don’t think I want to participate in a community where the organization isn’t even able to cut off the obviously bad parts. The people acting in disruptive manner, who when confronted state it’s being done about their world view. No. Jon, you are someone I do not want to work with. Your behaviour is simply unacceptable in anything remotely close to a workplace, and moreso in a community.
If you actually had stopped yourself to technical contributions, like you continuously try to lean on as an excuse, literally none of that would have happened. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Or that would be what I would be saying if the community had the ability to moderate appropriately, and wasn’t walking on broken eggshells due to continuous FUD and pressure being mounted by people like the RFC175 pals and external banned individuals.
(Now, that is a conspiracy that exists, and is being done in broad daylight! Hopefully you’re just being swept in by the support coming from there, and not willfully engaging in it. Hi srid!)
And then, the commit being given back despite what happened mere moments before is what breaks me. I think it should have been a good moment to pause and re-think giving back the commit bit to someone who is well on their way to self-selecting themselves out of the community again.
Whew.
TLDR; I can’t believe after these unneeded actions the commit bit was given without a second thought.
39 Likes
Let’s just note that the commit bit doesn’t make taking any moderation action that becomes necessary any harder to do. If the mod team makes the judgment call that someone’s current behavior needs to be curbed though a temporary or permanent suspension, then that’s a call that can be made regardless of committer status. It’s not a badge of ‘we think this person is above reproach’ or anything.
I continue to hope, because I’m a perpetual idealist, that the current members of the mod team can talk Jon down from the ledge he keeps putting himself on, making such actions unnecessary; but if they’re necessary, the commit bit is not a barrier. It’s simply an orthogonal privilege.
11 Likes
By this you mean that you posted to reddit first, then to discourse, then tried to lie about the timeline in hopes that nobody would look? There isn’t any lag in posting to discourse; there may be some lag in posting to reddit.
This is a bad look.
8 Likes
Others already touched on this, but can you please reiterate on how exactly the words you used in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/50105#issuecomment-2179462978 work towards that goal?
Why was a “I got unbanned and would like my commit bit back please” not sufficient? Can you see how that differs from what you ended up posting, and how the reaction would have been less bad? Don’t you see how many person-hours are being spent on just managing the fallout of your actions once again, precious time that people could have instead spent on technical work and on making Nixpkgs / NixOS the best package repository and Linux Distribution?
With that post, you successfully managed to shift the question from “should you get the commit bit back” to “should you be banned permanently, this time”.
21 Likes