The dire state of the SC

Over the last couple of days, I have been in touch with the majority of the SC and spent a total of eight hours on calls trying to figure out a way forward in this deadlock: Two very good two hour calls with John and Robert, I believed - at that time. A four hour call with Tom without progress on a solution, despite my best efforts. The following is my own interpretation of where we’re at.

John is hurt. Tom is angry. Robert is sad. I am feeling betrayed. These emotions dominate our behavior. We all rationally agree, that there is a “bug” in the constitution, which creates the current deadlock. I put up a PR to fix it. Robert hearts the PR, upvotes my comment advertising it - but then just stays silent. Tom tells me that this is the “correct engineering solution”, that he agrees with - but he won’t vote for it. John appreciates my PR and tells me in internal group chats that he ‘long wished that such “bug fix” could proceed more quickly and apolitically’, while telling me in a DM that he would only approve it after the election. They all clearly know what the “right thing” to do is, but put their own interests over these of the community.

Robert never felt empowered to make decisions about the Nix team while on the SC. John worries about his reputation and whether ca-derivations will be successful. Tom doesn’t see a problem with either the Nix team or his employer on the SC - we all just have to trust him very much. The fact that we now have two forks of Nix, both because they struggled to get changes merged into upstream Nix for different reasons - doesn’t impress them too much. Personally, I do wonder - what would governance in the NixOS community look like, if we actually tried it without involvement of the Nix team for once?

Robert breaks out in tears on the call with me, because of how bad all of this is for the community. He tells us that “people are more important”. Yet, behind the scenes, he stops every progress by accusing Winter of “character assassination” of John, by calling Gabby a “coward”, by turning down proposals for progress as “weak compromise” - and by consistently voting against the community. So which people are important again? All of the community or just your friends on the Nix team?

Tom is strong. He is so strong that he will “choose the good of this project over [his] employer”, even when threatened. Tom is also naive to even ask for such a pledge. Nobody would ever expect any SC member to put their live on the line for the good of the project. When talking about employers, trust in SC members is not about trusting the person - it is about trusting the employer to never do these things. People don’t trust Anduril, no matter what Tom swears to do. I explained that to him in depth - but he still fails to see it.

But yes, Tom is strong. He made it through the “zulip wars”. Unfortunately he never stopped fighting. He spent the whole term creating “dossiers” on various people to present them to the moderation team, collecting “facts” about their misbehavior. Of course he was right there when John asked for a “List of bad things k900 did” - creating the worst collection of evidence I have ever seen. Why was K900 removed? I can’t even tell after the fact and after reading the evidence.

There is a reason, the SC did not communicate the removal of K900 as moderator - because they just can’t explain it either. So far, everybody has only talked about how the SC tried to hide the reason that they were removing K900 from the moderation team - but nobody has actually talked about that reason itself: It’s simple - there is none. K900 was removed for “insubordination”. This insubordination was largely observed by “another moderator [having] to apologize for [K900’s] behavior”. But that was entirely misunderstood - based on federation lag. A chat message appeared out of order, that’s all. Causing a community crisis on federation lag? Well done.

Whoops, the whole moderation team stepped down. A single moderator left, who is now sick in bed (get well soon, Lassulus!) after spending a week in backrooms trying to defuse the situation. The reaction to that? Internal discussions of the SC to remove official discussion spaces. No official discussion spaces, no moderation team required. It’s as simple as that, isn’t it? Herr, wirf Hirn von Himmel! (German saying roughly translated as “Lord, throw brains down from Heaven!”)

Nobody wants to admit their own failures, of course. Thus, they follow the narrative of “the drama”, “the public outrage”, or the “bad faith” actors in the community taking the governance down, like some of our community members will consistently add to the already-high-quality-discussion whenever “the mob” is active on Discourse again. Tom would “merge the [above] PR immediately, if [we] can convince [him] the same thing doesn’t happen again to the next SC”. Personally, I do wonder - wow can we guarantee that the same thing doesn’t happen again and again to the community? What would the community look like, if we actually had good governance for once?

They all play the game of stalling and filibustering extremely well. One day, John is telling the SC to be “fine staying deadlocked and keeping [his] position”. The next day he is indicating a willingness to step down, then delaying an SC meeting again and again - only to then say, that it’s still on the other SC members to convince him to step down. Tom keeps working on “proposals”, without ever actually showing any of them. For good measure, he took notes of our 4 hour talk, while repeatedly trying to lead me to say things that he could mis-quote me on. The thing that Tom worries most about is to get a hand on the leaked screenshots. Gabby puts this into nice words: “Worrying about the whistleblowing leak in this moment is like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

Multiple people outside the SC have asked me whether there any adults left on the SC? I don’t know.

I only know this is a joke.


I am not making any calls to this SC anymore, because I have lost all faith in them. I have lost all faith in John, Robert and Tom being reasonable enough to put the interests of the community above their own.


I fully realize that with this post, I can’t be part of the solution anymore. I’d like to apologize to the 74 people who signed my one-sentence-letter with me, for letting them down by this. May someone else take over.

71 Likes

You know what. Worst case: election. New people. We deal with this.

Thanks for trying. Seriously. This sounds like an impossible task.

I wish that the hold out members at least had the decency to go out with some dignity instead of fighting the inevitable at every step. Ohh well, we will keep trying.

I fully realize that with this post, I can’t be part of the solution anymore. I’d like to apologize to the 74 people who signed my one-sentence-letter with me, for letting them down by this. May someone else take over.

This isn’t letting me down. I don’t think it’s letting any of us down. It’s realizing that some members of the steering committee would rather immolate their reputation than just taking the L and stepping down early.

Figuring that out for us all is a massive time saver. Now you’ve spared the rest of us the time to realize this individually.

28 Likes

Thank you @wolfgangwalther for taking so much of your personal time trying to figure out a decent solution for the community. Nothing we can do beyond that.

14 Likes

I consciously try not to engage on these threads beyond simple acknowledgement or my show of support, and I believe writing essay long responses on a community forum has little value or effect. Nonetheless, I have to express my severe disappointment. Disappointment in the amount of ego that keeps dominating this discourse. I absolutely have to admit that targetting John was a mistake, because really it was never about John or any single person in particular. It’s about the culture this SC has allowed to fester in itself, that has now peaked in absolute mistrust on all sides (even among the SC’s own members) and a sad hold to power that we must endure. That is why we needed a full re-election, because we can’t allow this SC’s culture to transfer onto the next one.

10 Likes

I trusted you @wolfgangwalther.

Could you explain to me how anyone can ever get anything done together if nobody can trust anyone?

So which people are important again? All of the community or just your friends on the Nix team?

Everyone who will be subjected to abrasive behavior, if they even stick around for long enough.

Posts like this massively degrade trust, and this is part of why I am staying on. I will follow up on this.

20 Likes

I wonder how posts like that are supposed to bring us closer together again, dragging private conversations into public.

I wish everyone could just accept the status quo, vote and let things go for now.

I hope we can agree that too may people got hurt or get hurt with very little outcome.

10 Likes

I wish everyone could just accept the status quo, vote and let things go for now.

This is exactly what was said one year ago. I don’t see how any of this changed. This is also why I don’t accept the “the SC needs time to sort things out” anymore.

Instead of focusing on the tone, let’s focus on the content of that post maybe?


What I actually wanted to say is, Wolfgang is not only a truly valuable contributor, he also became very active in 2024, i.e. he’s someone I’d consider to be part of a “newer generation” in nixpkgs (even though he had a few smallish PRs before).

And it’s pretty telling that how quick newer community members (who are doing actual technical work on a large scale - in contrast to a lot of other people in these discussions I may add!) come to the conclusion how broken our governance is that quickly.

39 Likes

Thank you for raising this, as someone who previously observed the board closely (and who has much more to say about the 1.5-year crisis than time currently allows), I can say your concerns resonate deeply. Many of the dynamics you describe mirror what happened during the last “constitutional crisis,” and it’s no coincidence that many involved in creating the NCA/SC are still closely tied to these same power structures (whether in the SC or in the board or adjacent to both of those).

It’s good to see some improvements, like “defusal” calls being shorter (8 hours → 4 hours), but it’s clear that fundamental change is still needed and has still not happened after all the blabbing which happened around the creation of the NCA/SC, an ultimately misguided endeavor when the solution was much simpler and required less emotional engagement from the community.

At the core, what’s missing is a governance structure that actively selects for people who not only understand political dynamics but are also capable of making difficult, principled decisions. Many community members (who are not even aligned with my views) beyond made allusion to this.

Unfortunately, very few within the current power structures have this experience, and attempts to encourage that kind of leadership have largely failed, in part because there’s a strong attachment to a particular vision that’s increasingly out of sync with the realities on the ground.

This gap between governance and those actually doing the unpaid work continues to grow, and the outcomes reflect that.


Perhaps it’s time to ask whether our energy might be better spent building something new: a structure and project that align more closely with these insights from the start, rather than continuing to patch up a framework that may no longer serve its purpose.

I know I took a pledge that I take seriously for which I will continue to do my best:

We don’t need broken governance structures that fail to deliver the change our community deserves. Even those I might disagree with have valid points. As a collective, we are eager (we should be?) to get back to what we do best, building and creating. Most of us are political curious, but this is not necessarily what we want to do on our free time, our true values lie somewhere else.

It’s a disservice to our craft and our creative potential when we are forced to waste our time navigating fragile, outdated systems. Systems that, instead of empowering us, drain us of the energy and passion that fuels our work. These systems are ticking time bombs, and it’s not right that our talents are being burned out on them.

Let’s not wait until we’re exhausted, until our creative well runs dry. We deserve better.

If anyone resonates with this call for change, I’m happy to create a space where we can discuss real alternatives, where we can channel our energy into something that respects our skills and ambitions.

Let’s not get stuck in the past, in a community that confused growth with success and failed to evolve with its own needs.

In this way, those who value “processes” appreciate the work of “SC” and seek a different kind of operation can stay within their community, alongside the volunteers who are comfortable with that. As for me, I’m not interested in participating in this façade. Hopefully, the “drama” and constitutional issues can come to an end, for everyone’s sake.

Feel free to DM me if you’re ready to collaborate and make something better.

19 Likes

On the contrary, you have “let me up”, so to speak. I have not expected you to spend HOURS talking with SC members and trying to figure out this mess as a focal point when I signed your letter. You exceeded expectations that I had, and really, I think the expectations of almost everyone too. Because this is not your mess to solve, and you still went ahead and tried.

I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that despite me criticizing governance at length, I have not put an equivalent amount of trust into SC to dedicate as much effort as you have.

What I’m trying to say is: thank you. I can’t say if your efforts will be in vain or not, but they are certainly appreciated.

If I may add: it has gotten worse. “Back in my day”, people needed more time to come to that conclusion. Things really are dire.

18 Likes

(Obviously, my personal positions, obviously outside scope of EC — and obviously filtered to avoid taking positions I find too strong to declare in public while in EC)

I want to remind that the reason we have and need proportionality is that approximately no claim about «all of the community» is correct.

Can’t explain does depend on «explain to whom», though.

A significant part of SC has declared employment situations which make quitting the job — due to the employer drastically overstepping — a significant inconvenience, but not a grave risk to livelihood, let alone life. At least as long as one doesn’t explain the departure…

I doubt that the proposal in question would in fact remove «Help» category, nor close it to newcomers. I do think that the wording you used is easy to read as including such removal.

4 Likes

Unlisted as this post is a massive violation of the CoC. It’s possible to report your findings without escalating at every turn and breaking people’s trust. That you like it or not, you are still talking to community members, and we should treat each other with dignity and respect.

26 Likes

Incredibly shortsighted move in my opinion that will just make this worse. I urge you to reconsider.

11 Likes

You should really re-list this thread again. You are not a moderator to make those calls. And do I need to remind you that SC has been extremely unhappy with moderator team being unaccountable (and you are, right now, being unaccountable).

If you continue this rogue behavior, I will have to take this up to SC.

7 Likes

This is just tone policing. It’s already clear that parts of the SC does not “treat each other with dignity and respect”, so I’m not sure why people criticizing those people have to live up to a higher standard.

10 Likes

Thank you, @wolfgangwalther, for taking up this colossal (and in some senses, Sisyphean) task. It was not all in vain — you impressed us with a level of fortitude that I have not seen in many community members around here.

Sometimes I wonder if this project would benefit from people who aren’t as attached to it. Sometimes I wonder if the people who want to “just code” should Just Code, and relinquish the power of moderation and governance to people who have experience in it. Sometimes I wonder if we should all come to realize that maybe this internet community isn’t worth crying or being frustrated or being so angry and unyielding about.

But doomerism is a dangerous direction to head into. Vitriol, as destructive as it is, is the ugly side of passion. And with passion, comes hope.

I seriously urge the electorate to carefully consider each and every member of the candidacy this year. If you want to see this system to continue to work, we need to install people who does not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. We need to install people who know they are mere mortals, who will reach a point where their limited wisdom is unable to guide the project any further. We need to install people whose internal conflicts will not grow unbounded to the extent it becomes a ticking time-bomb for everyone else.

Achieving this is hard for everyone. Therefore it’s paramount we empower the right people who can surmount our base instincts of anger, frustration and impulsiveness to keep a cool head in the midst of madness. Every bit of weakness will only be amplified onto all of us.

The election is only less than two weeks away. The new SC, merely three. As long as we collectively make the right call here, all hope might not be lost.

16 Likes

I fail to see how this is a breach of “dignity and respect”. I think the electorate deserves to know the results of Wolfgang’s findings, no matter which way it leans towards. Gabriella’s reports on the current SC dysfunction were not censored, either. Trying to conceal the fact that the SC is, pardon my words, a freaking dumpster fire, will only serve to mislead the electorate into thinking the current model is functional at all.

This is the precise kind of opaqueness that we need to dismantle in order to restore any amount of trust in the SC and in the moderation team. In the absence of the majority of the ex-moderation team, I urge you to either provide a concrete line of reasoning or reverse this decision.

12 Likes

Anybody with TL4 can unlist discussions and set slow mode on conversations. Not just moderators. Moderators can also ban , block and delete users in addition to TL4 permissions.

I’m not a moderator anymore, nor TL4. But I do agree that the original post could have been written in a way that does not constitute an emotional breach of trust whilst still addressing the facts and the deadlock that Wolfgang found himself in.

I really want to urge people to treat the discussion on the objective observations and avoid making emotional appeals if you want to continue it. Or it will very quickly devolve into a mud-slinging contest where everyone gets hurt. At which point we should close it.

18 Likes

This thread has gone downhill pretty bad, I’m not really well today, so I will just close it down. Please try again with less heat please

15 Likes