I disagree with the definite characterization as these message fragments as a lie, or as preparation to lie. However, what is clear to me that these actions means that the SC as a whole has breached the trust the community has given them.
The response given in the moderation team thread, and the evidence here has meant, in my opinion, that the community can no longer trust to be genuine any communication from the current SC or any substantially similar one. This situation is caused by the actions of SC members, actions that are unbefitting for a group sitting at the highest positions of leadership in the Nix community.
In light of this, I would like to take this opportunity to state:
I ask John Ericson to resign from the SC.
I have also decided to refrain from expressing my opinions on what the rest of the current SC, 2025 EC and what would be the newly elected SC should do at the moment.
I fail to understand how the SC can not vote for full reelections based on âloss of confidenceâ now. Clearly, 50% of SC members have lost confidence in this SC.
This means the current SC is unable to operate and make any more decisions - they would not get any majority at this stage!
While the result was not a majority, it is entirely clear that this brings the SC into a deadlock. With the result of that first vote in mind, the SC must now vote again and conclude that itâs impossible to keep working together now.
This vote itself is abuse of power and it damage the morale of the moderation team, which is not good.
You guys should work together, not fighting each other.
Reading the evidence (the four bullets) I donât come to the same conclusion. It seems to me that John prepared for how to communicate the news without making it unnecessarily badly reflecting on K900. Since there was no public communication about it yet, drawing the conclusion it was an attempt to lie is premature, in my opinion. Rather I see it as a kind of preparation of âcorporate fluffâ that usually follows news about re-orgs etc from management especially in the corporate world. It is not pretty, but neither is unexpected in these types of situations. I donât think it motivates resignation.
Usually corporate fluff works the other way though, right? You donât fire someone based on bad vibes, and only after go questioning people if theyâve been assaulted by them. You fire after someone brought up assault, and then fluff the public about bad vibes and not being a great fit for the team.
The post clearly says that John was looking for evidence to present, which they didnât have at the time of ejecting him. Itâs not PR speak, thatâs not how it goes.
Itâs hard for me not to look at this and not consider it a hostile takeover. Here is a very plausible interpretation that someone without an agenda could come up with.
I as an SC member identify a moderator as problematic. Weâve worked together for a long time so I know how this person is - for the sake of argument letâs say itâs the kind of person likely to abuse power and turn off people who work with him. As I am discussing this with the team, I donât want to just start hashing the situation right away. I say that this guy is bad vibes or whatever was said. Knowing that justification is actually needed to kick someone from a position they occupy (something I was elected to do btw), I suggest we compile a list of behaviors. Are we suggesting that the committee is not entitled to do a little PR/marketing/wording when doing public announcements?
The SC is meant to represent different slices of the community with different opinions, I can empathize with you Winter for feeling like youâre unable to affect change in certain areas and perhaps get routinely outvoted on things you care about. Thatâs what it means to have the less popular opinion and it does not feel good. But it does not in any way make your opinion any less important. I think your frustration has led to whistleblowing. It is a blown whistle - but one blown in bad faith over what is at worst a public statement cooked up in bad taste. This is not the way to enact your opinions. This is hostel and not generous to the people you work with nor the community at large.
I call the elected members, election committee and steering committee, to identify this a hostile takeover. Let the process that was nitpicked to death last year take place. It seems to be working as intented.
The SC is illegitimate to my eyes and I assume in the majority of the community eyes as well, John, Robert, and Tom should vote for a vote of no confidence for the health of the community.
I would also like to point you all to this article @Gabriella439 made that has geat points in it.
I call to disband SC in its entirety and to retire the institution pending a new approach to community
If the NixOS Foundation doesnât offer a consistent political platform and insist on it, then this community space will always be unsafe for the vulnerable in the global community.
I have to emphasize the community part because a concerning # of people here genuinely think issue trackers are a community. Like, weâve reached rock bottom at that point.
As someone who was also privy to those chats I want to add some context of my own.
The actual reality is that the Steering Committee voted to remove K900 for diverse reasons. There were four votes in favor of removing K900 (myself included) and arguably up to four different rationales for removing K900. Even though we had a majority in favor of the removal we did not have a consistent reason for why we were removing K900 even though we agreed upon the outcome. When @jtojnar pointed out (on behalf of John) that some of those quotes were taken out of context what he meant is that the committee was asked to publicly explain the decision and John internally took upon himself to help gather and present a uniform rationale for the decision.
This is not my way of saying that I believe Winter was wrong to blow the whistle on those internal communications. The Steering Committee being unable to articulate a clear and consistent public rationale for their decisions is itself an indictment upon the committee given that weâre already under fire for a lack of transparency and poor communication and engagement with the community. Thatâs why yesterday I called for a vote of no confidence since I believe that none of us (myself included) are serving the community well and there should be a fresh vote for all members of the Steering Committee in this upcoming election.
To âphrase the wording of the removal carefullyâ is the most common and non-controversial thing to do in any institution with adults an the room.
Also, mods that do all their decisions and actions in secret without any accountability whatsoever because they donât feel safe otherwise donât get to ask for transparency from anybody.
I ask for no change in SC. (Not that I would have any stake in this)
So the SC engaged in conscious PR planning to take some fuel out of the fire.
In this thread, we are asked to identify this act as itself a source of immense fire?
Believe it or not, wait for the next election.
This post is not asking for a legitimate governing process to work. It is yet another case of organizing, fomenting, and amplifying an accumulation of over-interpreted details with the aim of making the legitimate process crack open so that another process that is even less predictable can take its place. Along with this sharply focused micrograph, the entrepreneurs of chaos ask us to turn a blind eye to their own profit motives.
How do you interpret the fact that if fpletz hadnât resigned early from the SC a vote of no-confidence would in fact have passed, and that even now itâs a tie between the members of the SC calling for full reelection and those wanting to stay?
Are the 4 SC members calling for the reelection somehow less legitimate in your view?
Oi! Robert, John, I like you! Tom, we sure got some different anthropological convictions, different views about the history of âThe Stateâ and their practical implications, but youâre a very interesting person and I like you! Letâs have ourselves a full re-election!
P.S. Winter, thank you for coming forward! Even the votes alone, published by Jan, confirm it was a major benefit to have you on the committee. Peder, hope youâre handling the stress well and not ruminating. Thanks for publishing. Gaby, same as with Tom (the irony?), I have a vague notion our worldviews would be quite in conflict, but Iâve always found your opinions to be good points of reference, and Iâm grateful for your work. Rhendic, thanks for persistently being the voice of reason:)
P.P.S. This is not an endorsement of the SC as a concept. But weâll still be better off having a complete do-over!
[Cross-post because initially posted in wrong thread]
Did some Steering Committee members try to manipulate the way a piece of information was going to be presented to the community? I think this is beside the point. The point is that the transparency level the Steering Committee has been operating so far has created a climate of distrust towards the entity. And we should change that, and we can change that by voting in a new Steering Committee that pledges to put in place transparency measures like publications of minutes and votes (and amend the constitution to make it durable). It is normal that we did not get all the constitution right the first try. Now we have to learn from the mistakes and improve.
As for the current Committee members, they should do what every good peopleâs representative should do when their legitimacy is questioned: go get it back in the urns.