It is most helpful - thank you for taking the time to respond!
Personally I wholeheartedly agree with and support both of those causes as they align very well with my personal political stances.
The challenge is that those are my political stances. For me to insist or expect the NixOS foundation to adopt those same political stances is something radically different. I assume that this is the primary reason no other proponent of the foundations new politics have had the courage to stand by their convictions as clearly as you have just now. Thank you.
Now, mind you I am not suggesting that an organisation like NixOS completely refrain from taking political stances. For example many projects tie themselves closely to the principles of FOSS. To me that stance makes a lot of sense and is commendable, but more importantly it is directly relevant to the nature and conduct of the project.
That said, FOSS does not fully align with my personal politics - which is an important part of what drew me to NixOS: Aligning with open source, but not taking a hardcore FOSS stance - striking the MIT license balance. For that reason alone, aside from the direct relevance, seeing the project adopting this new political stance is in stark opposition to core values I enjoy in the project.
This is obviously side-stepping already described probliems with the specific political stance, like:
-
The board has failed in its responsibility to communicate the stance in no uncertain terms, meaning at present nothing prevents a NixConf from sponsorthip endorsing an arms dealer supplying the opponents of the political causes you and I share.
-
Arms dealers supply many conflicts - not just the politically convenient ones.
-
The political influence of for-profit military industry regardless of the will of the people.
-
However potentially justifiable or necessary, war is messy and painful to any well-adjusted human. Inviting it into our community will never be a clean deal, will not just make “the baddies” feel unwelcome or unsafe.
-
No military industry or war campaign it supplies is reliant on sponsorship endorsements from any open source community or project. Declining to endorse it does not hurt it or the wars it supplies.
-
While it seems there is an apparent dire need to source more funding via conference sponsorships, jumping straight to an industry with this many challenges, which have all been recently called out in the community, seems at best foolishly conflict-seeking. If you want slightly less Bond-villain controversial industries, the fossil fuels sector is dying for positive PR and endorsements.
-
Declining to endorse arms dealers does not prevent anyone from participating in the project, whereas choosing to endorse them may well conflict with policies of other organisations which can then no longer contribute to or benefit from the project. Off the top of my head a, hopefully non-controversial, example would likely be the International Red Cross.