|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Please consider subscribing to LWN

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit this page to join up and keep LWN on the net.

By Daroc Alden
April 29, 2024

On April 21, a group of anonymous authors and non-anonymous signatories published a lengthy open letter to the Nix community and Nix founder Eelco Dolstra calling for his resignation from the project. They claimed ongoing problems with the project's leadership, primarily focusing on the way his actions have allegedly undermined people nominally empowered to perform various moderation and governance tasks. Since its release, the letter has gained more than 100 signatures.

Decision-making authority

The Nix project is governed by the NixOS Foundation, a non-profit organization that handles the project's finances and legal responsibilities. The foundation itself is headed by a board with five voting members, chaired by Dolstra. There are no term limits, and the board selects its own membership and chair. According to the board's team page, its responsibilities include handling "administrative, legal, and financial tasks", sponsorships and donations, funding for "community events and efforts", and acting as an arbiter in case of conflicts in the community. Notably, the board "is not responsible for technical leadership, decisions, or direction", nor is it expected to handle all decision making. The board is responsible for providing "a framework for teams to self-organize", including a duty to "[h]and out the credentials and permissions required for the teams' work".

The open letter has several related complaints, but the most central one is that they allege Dolstra has repeatedly strong-armed the board and members of other community teams to overrule their decisions:

For example, after months of discussion on sponsorship policy in the board, with consensus having been formed on a policy that allows community veto of NixCon sponsors, Eelco (and Graham [Christensen], at the same time) appeared at the open board call over 45 minutes in, and began re-litigating the issue of whether we need to limit sponsorship to begin with, which had already been agreed upon by everyone but him.

Christensen is Dolstra's co-founder at Determinate Systems. The letter lists other examples, such as Dolstra blocking longtime contributors from becoming code reviewers or blocking a build-system change that had made it through the RFC process. The letter concludes that Dolstra is essentially leveraging social power from being the founder of the project to overrule decisions that are nominally supposed to be made collaboratively. In short, Dolstra is acting as "the effective Benevolent Dictator for Life (BDFL)" of the project, even though the NixOS Foundation's charter doesn't grant anyone that authority. The letter says this leads to "a culture of responsibility without authority" that erodes contributors' desire to continue working on the project. It specifically mentions the moderation team as an example of this, saying that its members are "in fear of their authority being undermined directly by Eelco or indirectly through the Foundation".

When asked to comment on the concerns raised in the letter, members of the NixOS moderation team responded:

Overall we think that the letter describes the situation of the moderation team fairly well. We have been operating in an emergency mode most of the time for over half a year now. Our team retention is at an all time low, and we are barely able to keep up with recruiting new members as old ones quit. Right now the moderation team is down to four people, including two who desire to leave as soon as a replacement is found, not counting another moderator who left last week.

To the extent that the moderation team feels disempowered, this is mostly because of heavy antagonism from some community members or risks of destabilizing the community, and not because of an actual lack of power. Most of that is a reflection of a deeper cultural conflict within the community and not directly related to the foundation board.

Despite slightly disagreeing with the source of the issue, they went on to acknowledge that Dolstra had impeded several attempts to improve the situation, and said that they understood many community members' complaints. The team also called the situation itself "a deep structural and cultural issue involving many people".

Pierre Bourdon, a long-time contributor to Nix, posted on Mastodon about his experience working on NixOS, stating that while he disagrees with the tone and approach of the open letter, the factual statements about Dolstra's leadership match his own experience.

Conflicts of interest

The letter also alleges several conflicts of interest, primarily concerning Dolstra's employer, Determinate Systems. Anduril, a military contractor that uses NixOS, has repeatedly attempted to become a sponsor of NixCon, which did not go over well with the community, as reflected in the minutes of the board meeting on March 20. The letter says Dolstra pushed strongly for the inclusion of Anduril as a sponsor even after it became clear that many core contributors disagreed. Anduril was eventually dropped as a sponsor for both NixCon 2023 and NixCon 2024 after community pressure. [Thanks to Martin Weinelt for pointing out that Anduril did end up sponsoring NixCon 2024.]

On April 10, Théophane Hufschmitt, the secretary of the board, shared an update on the board's new sponsorship policy. Hufschmitt expressed the board's apologies for the way the situation was handled, and promised that "we will prioritize transparency, inclusivity, and responsiveness in our decision-making processes."

That same day, Samuel Dionne-Riel stated that Dolstra had refused to clarify whether he had a relationship with Anduril and asked Christensen, a co-founder of Determinate Systems: "Does DetSys have or had relationships with Anduril?" Christensen replied: "Did you know this category of question is pretty much impossible to answer because NDAs are a thing?"

This isn't the only time Dolstra has appeared to avoid disclosing potential conflicts of interest; the letter alleges that he kept his status as a founder of Determinate Systems secret for some months (a claim Dolstra later denied), and that this is especially worrying in light of some of the technical promises that Determinate Systems makes to customers. The company produces its own installer for Nix that the company promises will provide stable support for some Nix features. The letter states: "This is fine, however, it is questionably acceptable to do that while employing the lead developer of CppNix [the main Nix implementation] and saying nothing about how this will interact with the team's [decision-making] autonomy." The concerns are not entirely theoretical, either; the main Nix installer has been broken in various ways since version 2.18 in September 2023.

Call to action

The final section of the letter calls for Dolstra's resignation from the board, suggesting that he should also completely disengage from the project for at least six months, to give the rest of the board time to reform the project's governance.

This document should be seen as the canary in the coal mine for what many people have been feeling for years and does not exhaustively cover absolutely all problems in the community, but we hope it is enough to justify action.

The letter ends by suggesting that if Dolstra doesn't resign, the signatories would switch to and support a fork of the project. I contacted several of the signatories to ask whether they'd be willing to provide additional commentary on why they believed a letter like this to be a necessary step. Haydon Welsh responded:

I signed the letter because it was clear that every other team member was sick and tired of Eelco, and so I saw it only right if that's their only hope to regain enthusiasm for the project. No open-source project should die or be hard-forked because of one person, that destroys a lot of the purpose for being open-source.

Kiara Grouwstra had stronger feelings on the matter:

While I want a full rotation of members on the NixOS board, as well as changes to its goal and structure so as to better incorporate the community including marginalized perspectives, my friend convinced me the polemic response would not sit well with the moderators, and shared with me the draft open letter about Eelco's role, which I opted to settle for as the lower-hanging fruit right now.

On April 27, Xe Iaso wrote a blog post about xer perspective on the matter, stating that at this point a fork is both inevitable and doomed. Even if the actions called for in the letter do come about, the difficult situation is already having an impact on the Nix community. On April 21, Nixpkgs contributor Kamila Borowska resigned from the project. On April 25, Mario Rodas, who had contributed more than 250 packages, followed suit. In total, 24 maintainers have left.

Dolstra's response

On April 26, Dolstra posted a response to the letter. He states that the role of the board is to handle the financial and legal work, not to run the Nix community. He also claims that he has had "very little involvement in Nixpkgs and NixOS in recent years". Dolstra goes on to state: "I am just one member of the five-member Nix team and hold no more formal authority than the others in determining the direction of the team." While this is true, it does not directly refute the letter's claims that Dolstra exceeds the formal authority granted to him.

Dolstra also reiterated his position that NixCon should not refuse Anduril's sponsorship, stating: "It is my opinion that it is not for us, as open source software developers, to decide whose views are valid and whose are not, and to allow or disallow project or conference participation as a result." Dolstra does, however, explicitly refute the claim that his involvement in Determinate Systems was at all secret: "My role, participation, and focus on the good work being done at Determinate Systems have been public knowledge since the company's inception". He goes on to say that the claim that Determinate Systems seeks to have an outsized influence on the community is "patently false".

He ends his response by inviting community members who feel unwelcome in the Nix community to work for Determinate Systems instead:

I remain committed to creating a community where everyone feels seen, heard, and valued, and I will not let unfounded accusations detract from this important work. I encourage everyone reading this who feels that they have not been heard or feels displaced to join the Determinate Systems community as we continue working to make Nix as easy to use and as impactful as possible.

It is difficult to predict where the Nix community will go from here, and what the eventual fate of any forks will be. For now, Dolstra remains the chair of the board — a position he seems unlikely to give up under pressure from the letter's signatories.



(Log in to post comments)

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:33 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

I have to say, personally if I was responding to accusations of using my personal authority to go around the foundation and official governance structures and using it to try to monopolize the communities work for my company and it's clients at the cost of the community, I would not do that by responding in my personal capacity on that very company's blog (without notifying the foindation) and then not so subtly declaring that community a lost cause in favor of my company...

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 16, 2024 0:09 UTC (Thu) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

I immediately noticed the same thing as well. Incredibly audacious for him to pull a move like that.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:38 UTC (Mon) by delroth (subscriber, #110092) [Link]

Maybe one small thing missing from this article is that after the statement by Dolstra on DetSys's blog, the other members of the NixOS Foundation (of which Dolstra is the chair) posted a response to distance themselves from the views in the DetSys article and to clarify that it was written without coordinating with the board: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/small-update-from-the-board...

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 2, 2024 14:39 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I wouldn't call this a small thing: this reinforces the notion that there are exist one dynamic which is presented to the public and entirely different one which is actually working.

That's… a recipe for disaster. I'm not against “disctator or (a few) who controls everything” project structure (heck, I'm using SQLite and look on how it's governed), but presenting one thing in writing and then doing something entirely different in reality is just dishonest.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:41 UTC (Mon) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

> "It is my opinion that it is not for us, as open source software developers, to decide whose views are valid and whose are not, and to allow or disallow project or conference participation as a result."

We're not talking about participation, we're talking about sponsorship. As a community you can agree that certain kinds of sponsorships should be rejected and that it their right. Since there appears to be a significant consensus here, I don't see that Eelco's personal opinion is really relevant here. He should be trying to change people's minds, not just telling them they're wrong.

In general though, Foundations like this really should have a scheduled rotation of members, if only to prevent ossification.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:24 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

I mean, we don't have to speculate there. I first heard about Anduril about a year or so ago in the tones of "did you know there's this peter thiel backed company using nix to make some pretty heinous killer drone and border stuff? ew". But at that point nobody was really hugely inclined to do anything about it. Even when their employees who, unsurprisingly, hold some pretty reprehensible views started airing them in discussions and engaging in "I'm not touching you" rules probing, the response was more annoyance at Anduril. Things only truly came to a head regarding them when the foundation indicated that it was going to side with Anduril over the community every step of the way unless their hands were forced by third parties, in combination with the other organizational issues. That is very different from just participation, or even taking a bit of sponsorship money.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:50 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

Wow, what a disgusting attack on people, who in a meritocracy, actually the most measurable merit. That's IMHO all that counts, people with strongly held opinions can hold them as strongly as they can, but that's about all they're >entitled< to. End of story. The NixOS community, if anything, is now in dire need of help defending against this woke mob. Just like Linux kernel community had to be defended (and yet it still pops up from time to time, but Linus showing these people their place right at the beginning, saying he's not changing - we need an analogue of that here right now)

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:57 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

Knowing Eelco and Graham personally, also knowing what the state of "community" was a little while ago - before I disconnected precisely because of the onramp of internal politics and more importantly, where that is coming from, nope, I am not interested in one single byte of what the opposing side has to say. This is just becoming too much.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:01 UTC (Mon) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]

> help defending against this woke mob

Scratch an LLM fanatic, find a fascist.

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:03 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I don't see anything good coming from this particular subthread, can we just stop now and save us all a bunch of obnoxiousness, please?

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:24 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]

TBH I think you should have flagged the parent comment of what you actually replied to.

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:30 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I flagged the subthread, not a specific comment; my request landed in that thread at the point that I found it, not necessarily where things started to take a bad turn.

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:05 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

It would be helpful, when trying to steer LWN comments away from what you want to see less of, to *very overtly* state the point at which you see the thread going wrong, because people take that as feedback on what you're actually complaining about. Otherwise, if people often see the pattern of "awful comment", "reasonable callout of awful comment", "response to callout saying to stop", without a clear indication that the *entire thread* started from the awful comment was undesirable, what it *looks* like is that you're flagging the callout of bad behavior rather than the bad behavior.

This is *especially* true on topics that reliably attract awful comments.

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 17:10 UTC (Mon) by intelfx (subscriber, #130118) [Link]

> Otherwise, if people often see the pattern of "awful comment", "reasonable callout of awful comment", "response to callout saying to stop"

Throwing around insults like "LLM fanatic" and "fascist" is hardly a "reasonable callout of [a] comment", if that's what you were implying.

Let's stop this one here

Posted Apr 29, 2024 17:15 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

The former certainly seems like a non sequitur. The latter seems like an entirely reasonable callout of someone who uses phrases like "woke mob", and I am directly stating that rather than implying it.

In any case, I would propose that going meta and talking *about* the comment thread only provides a certain amount of value, and that value has now been used up. So, let's stop, shall we?

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:12 UTC (Mon) by burtness (subscriber, #93747) [Link]

The impression I got is that Linus held on to his position by working to change the behaviour thats been a problem? You're also misrepresenting the NixOS situation given that the complaints are coming (at least in part) from people who very much do the work only to see it undermined, frustrated or undone. The status quo is not really meritocracy, its just a fiefdom for the pioneers.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:17 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

The way I see it, he maybe toned it down a bit, but from what I've seen, his rants can still hurt a person emotionally, which was the main complaint there. I don't think that has changed - maybe there was a bit of a period where some people said he's changed, but one can absolutely find new rants that have spilled outside of LKML.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 6, 2024 20:34 UTC (Mon) by immibis (subscriber, #105511) [Link]

The political complaints are more than simple emotional hurt.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:24 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

> The status quo is not really meritocracy, its just a fiefdom for the pioneers.

Yeah, that is absolutely true.

I think if we were to look for the original root cause of these problems here, it is that Eelco was too hands-off with the community when it really began forming, he was polishing the rough edges on Nix for too long, so it grew fast way over what he was ever ready to handle and now it seems to me it is just too late - especially now that the tensions are so noticeable it's even made it here to LWN.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:00 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

I don't think that's entirely fair. There were people in the community who anticipated this exact outcome 3 years ago, e.g. https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98#issuecomment-894473214 is remarkably prescient. This whole thing hasn't happened overnight, the tensions have obviously been building for a while and there were plenty of occasions to change course.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:38 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]

It was evident to me some trouble was brewing even sooner, for me the tipping point, where I decided to keep myself out of it, was NixCon '19. AFAIK, it started as kind of a power struggle between then the largest Nix-based employer (Tweag) and the original crew... it wasn't a nice picture already back then. IMHO the Anduril drama masks these issues and paints the two implicitly as evil, so it makes sense to me why it's this much emphasized by the "anonymous" collective.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 2, 2024 9:35 UTC (Thu) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]

Are you okay. You don't seem okay.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:11 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

> Christensen replied: "Did you know this category of question is pretty much impossible to answer because NDAs are a thing?"

Unless someone is reliably in the habit of glomarizing ("I can neither confirm nor deny") in *both* directions, which most people are not, then it's actually *very easy* to communicate this information. If you *don't* have a business relationship, you don't have an NDA, so "no" can always be communicated. "No comment" thus very likely means either 1) "yes", or 2) "I don't think that should matter", both of which round to the same thing.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:34 UTC (Mon) by Karellen (subscriber, #67644) [Link]

No open-source project should die or be hard-forked because of one person, that destroys a lot of the purpose for being open-source.

Really? I'd have thought that, in the event of other possibilities being exhausted, the ability of any (sub-)group to hard-fork a project is one of the main purposes for being open-source.

Nix* Governance: An Analysis

Posted Apr 29, 2024 17:05 UTC (Mon) by dmv (subscriber, #168800) [Link]

What is clear from the past couple of weeks is that there is a vast amount of confusion and discontent over Nix* governance. What to make of it and the competing claims about it? Well, we have an entry point we can use to bootstrap an understanding of the authorities and equities: the Foundation is a legal entity. Whatever may be said, or omitted, about the structure and function of the community, the Foundation's identity and legal authority/responsibility flows from the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation. Helpfully enough, those are available in one of the NixOS repos in both the original Dutch and in English translation. Let's have a look. You can follow along here: https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/blob/master/by-laws/O...

The Foundation is incorporated in order to work towards some purpose. Article 2.1 provides the Foundation's purpose:

"The purpose of the foundation is: to develop, propagate, and promote the adoption of a purely functional software deployment model and to support open-source projects that implement that model, as well as other activities that relate to, pertain to, and/or can be conducive to the foregoing in the broadest sense."

So that's why the Foundation exists. Who runs the Foundation? Article 3.1 establishes the Foundation board: "The board manages the foundation, sets the policy, and bears ultimate responsibility for the realization of the foundation’s purpose." Furthermore, Article 8 provides, "The board represents the foundation, but the foundation may also be represented by two jointly acting board members." So the board manages and represents the Foundation, although two jointly acting board members may represent the board itself. Ok. Anyone else? Yes (maybe). Article 8.2 says:

"The board may grant, in writing, a general or special power of attorney to one or more specific board members or other persons for the purpose of representing the foundation. The board must make a general power of attorney known to third parties through publication in the commercial register at the Chamber of Commerce in the locale where the foundation is registered."

The locale is Utrecht. I wonder if the board has ever granted a power of attorney to anyone, whether general or special. There appears to be no requirement that the board make known any grant of a special power of attorney, whereas a general power of attorney should have been advertised at the Chamber of Commerce in Utrecht.

What may the board may do to accomplish the Foundation's purposes? Article 5 governs meetings that may be held and how to hold them, while Article 6 speaks more specifically decisionmaking. The board makes decisions through resolutions: "The board may adopt resolutions only if a majority of serving board members is present or represented" at a meeting (Article 6.1). Resolutions pass or fail by simple majority vote, with each board member having one vote (and each vote, furthermore, of the same weight as the others) (Articles 6.4 & 6.5). A resolution may also be adopted outside the context of meetings, per Article 6.6: "The board may also adopt resolutions outside meetings; however, such a resolution may
be adopted only if all board members express their support of the resolution in writing." So resolutions agreed upon outside of meetings must be unanimous, with all the board expressing agreement in writing.

The board is also granted the power to appoint committees or workgroups in Article 11: "The board may establish committees or workgroups, which may carry out specific board tasks under the board’s responsibility." Article 12.1 gives the board the power to "adopt regulations concerning its functioning and that of any committees and workgroups."

Finally, the board is responsible for the Foundation's finances: "The foundation must see to the proper management of its assets" (9.2).

The board's authority is cabined a little bit by Article 7: "The board is not authorized to enter into agreements for the acquisition, sale, or encumbrance of registered property, or to enter into agreements under which the foundation is committed as guarantor or joint and several debtor, warrants performance by a third party, or provides security for the debt of a third party." Basically, that's a limitation on what kinds of legal agreements and/or representations the board may enter into for the Foundation.

The board may amend the Articles themselves, as well as also dissolve the Foundation (see Article 13).

Finally, Article 15.1 is a catchall provision: "In all cases not provided for by these articles, the board decides."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the Foundation's structure. It exists for the sake of the purposes enumerated in Article 2.1.

Now, the next question is what, precisely, the relationship is between the Foundation (the board) and the various NixOS projects that are in its orbit. In other words, what, precisely, are the contours of those orbits? I spent about an hour or two poking around through everything I could find in the Github repos and websites of the various projects (I mean Nix the language, Nixpkgs, et al.). Here's my analysis of the relationship(s) between the board and the projects:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It is literally never specified anywhere. No specific authorities or representations are granted or otherwise made. Are the NixOS "Teams" "committees or workgroups" under the board as provided by Article 11 of the Foundation's Articles of Incorporation? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Where does the oft-repeated limitation on the Foundation that the board is not responsible for technical direction come from? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There are no answers to those questions. So it's no wonder that no one seems to know exactly how to understand the Foundation's role in and relationships with the various Nix* projects. Whether it's understandable or not that this was the course taken is a separate question. I frankly don't care. But you can see that looseness and informality has come back around to bite the whole community. I wish them luck in resolving it.

Disclaimer

Posted Apr 29, 2024 17:07 UTC (Mon) by dmv (subscriber, #168800) [Link]

The disclaimer I added right at the end of editing the above disappeared (no doubt user error, oops), but for the record:

(Please note that while I was a lawyer in the United States, I don't know anything at all about Dutch law.)

Nix* Governance: An Analysis

Posted Apr 30, 2024 7:38 UTC (Tue) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

This all seems pretty typical of the articles of association for a Dutch foundation (disclaimer: just browsed the Dutch version, looks similar to other such documents I've seen). Generally it's a template where article 2 is the only one that really changes. Sometimes there's some minor tweaks elsewhere.

You're right, the articles do not include any specific changes regarding the NixOS community. But then, that's not necessary if the goal of the organisation was simply to be a legal entity to hold assets. In particular, there's no mention of any mechanism that would allow members of a community to exert any influence over the foundation. They could have if they wanted to, but did not.

Dutch Foundations ('stichtingen') are the least accountable of all the organisation types. They have no shareholders, no members, the board is only accountable to itself and anything listed in the AoA. It's possible to make amendments that don't conflict with the AoA (huishoudelijk reglement) but that seems unlikely here given the boilerplate AoA. My take is basically that the NixOS community has no relationship with the foundation other than what the board feels like. Which is kinda tricky if the foundation is organising a conference and the community disagrees with the way it is run. The community literally has no leg to stand on.

Nix* Governance: An Analysis

Posted Apr 30, 2024 17:51 UTC (Tue) by dmv (subscriber, #168800) [Link]

I spelled it out in painful detail only for the non-law types, whose eyes tend to fully over when looking at legal documents. :)

I agree, there's nothing that stands out especially. And what interests/interested me most are the exact ambiguities you pointed out about the relationship(s) between the Foundation and NixOS. Not least because I was reading the Discourse and Github comments on Nixpkgs when they had a bunch of maintainers officially resign. There was a strong feeling among them that they are related to NixOS but fully independent.

So to add to the confusion, the people involved in the different Nix-related projects have a bunch of different views about just what their relationships are.

> ...if the goal of the organisation was simply to be a legal entity to hold assets.

Another thing I noticed was in their Infra Team repo. In their inventories, it appears that *individual people* are the owners of the bits of infrastructure NixOS et al. use. Maybe that's where they came from and they've been officially granted to the Foundation, but that was very unclear.

> Which is kinda tricky if the foundation is organising a conference and the community disagrees with the way it is run.

Completely agree. I was also interested in how they actually organize the conferences, given the clause in the Articles that says the board may not enter into agreements or contracts that make the Foundation the guarantor of a debt. Are the conference organizers putting themselves personally on the hook? Is it prepaid? Interesting details only a lawyer could love. ;)

> The community literally has no leg to stand on.

That was the main thing I think they need to understand.

My advice: leaving aside all the substantive details about the recent controversies, the governance issues will keep recurring unless and until the different projects figure out what their actual status is vis-a-vis the Foundation. If, for. example, Nixpkgs think they are fully independent, they need to establish that. If the Foundation or NixOS wants to dispute that, that will both tell you a lot about how *they* view the projects and about concrete directions that need to be taken going forward for those who disagree.

But I'm just an interested outside observer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nix* Governance: An Analysis

Posted Apr 30, 2024 21:13 UTC (Tue) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

> I was also interested in how they actually organize the conferences, given the clause in the Articles that says the board may not enter into agreements or contracts that make the Foundation the guarantor of a debt. Are the conference organizers putting themselves personally on the hook?

This is normal. Article 7 says the foundation can't act as guarantor for someone else's debt. They are allowed to enter into standard contracts themselves though. They have limited liability. The relevant article is actually Article 9 describing how the foundation is funded. Notably it does not mention debts, so any conference has to be financed from money they have on hand. Which is of course one of the reason sponsors are so useful: they can front money for the organisation before the conference starts and tickets are sold. Foundations ('stichtingen') tend to have a hard time getting loans from banks anyway precisely because they are so unaccountable.

> the governance issues will keep recurring unless and until the different projects figure out what their actual status is vis-a-vis the Foundation.

Agreed, this is a cluster-f*ck. The foundation seems setup entirely for the benefit of the founders, not the community. This was going to blow up eventually no matter what happened.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 17:56 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

It might be important to mention that a major contributing factor here is a heavily bias moderation culture that amplifies a singular position to create an illusion that it is much more reprasentative of the community as a whole than it actually is.

I am saying this as a long time Nix project contirbutor and author of a recent RFC to address the issues with this moderation bias, and instead of having an open discussion with me, so far I have been banned (the day after posting my RFC) and there is a long series of _ad hominem_ attacks launched freely in the github PR thread, to which I have no power to respond.

This alone should illustrate the depth of the issue.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 18:25 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

You somehow forgot to attach said presumably perfectly reasonable thing you wrote that got you banned to your post. After reading it and some of your associated commentary and context, I understand why, and I'm indeed very glad they banned you despite the moderation dysfunction.

here it is for anyone else: https://github.com/nrdxp/rfc-evidence/blob/master/rfc_evi...

As some might not be surprised to learn, it is largely a vague screed about woke mobs and various other far right dogwhistles that goes after a bunch of contributors with thinly veiled accusations and relitigates a bunch of other dearly earned bans.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 18:36 UTC (Mon) by riking (subscriber, #95706) [Link]

"oh no scary trans person is a moderator on the link aggregator site the writers of the letter are posting it to"

Yeah okay I can ignore this person if they're making that kind of stretch.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 20:47 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

I'm sorry I don't see that anywhere in the document, so yeah, this is exactly the kind of mass delusion I am trying to address. Don't put words in my mouth, please and thank you. Also didn't leave any links so people could find it on their own if they are interested. Not exactly difficult to find nixos RFCs.

Also, if you agree that its fine to completely quash debate on a contentious issue that has been escalting for almost 5 years now, that I have sat by queitly not agitating and all, and only jumped in because I'm tired of seeing talented people silenced and leaving, then we are too far off ideologically to even argue.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 2:29 UTC (Tue) by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325) [Link]

I tried to read your document. I got as far as the link to srid's "unwoke" page, and gave up. If you seriously think linking to a page like that is defensible in a collaborative FOSS environment, then I don't really see much point in continuing to read your argument beyond there.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 20:56 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

And actually just a bit further, there are not far right people in tech, because there are basically no right wingers in tech, so the one who is delusional is you. Nobody is immune from mistakes no matter how they identify. Identity doesn't even come into it and was never mentioned beyond the fact that it is weaponized on the other side, which it is, as you are demonstrating quite well, thank you.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 21:24 UTC (Mon) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

How do you know the politics of everyone in tech? I suspect that most people in tech don't advertise their politics in tech forums. My guess would be that the politics of people in tech is broadly similar to the politics of the general population, at least based on my 30+ years of work in the tech industry.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:16 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

Indeed I would have corrected my previous statement and said there are almost no, because there is always someone, but what I am more speaking to is the endless witchhunt for all the far-right extremist that largely simply don't exist in this environment.

Please

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:19 UTC (Mon) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

We are getting far afield again; I think that the discussion of developers' political affiliation is not really on-topic here. Let's stop now, please.

Please

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:28 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

I would agree, and I'm basically done here. I've said all I have to say, and it has been made quite clear that everyone is a little too touchy, specifically because nobody wants to talk about it, but if we can't do work anymore unless we do, well that's really what the RFC is all about. It's really not that hard, and we used to have the answer for this.

Just look at Google's recent firings. In any ways Google was the poster boy for all this politicing in tech for a time, if its now too far even for them, well maybe that's a real sign, and I'm not just crazy here.

You guys can continue to throw mud if you'd like. Enjoy your week.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:01 UTC (Mon) by willy (subscriber, #9762) [Link]

I have worked with two people who made no secret of their vote for Donald Trump (2016 and 2020). I don't think either of them were looney enough to participate in January 6th, but they're both fond of using slurs for their political opponents.

And you can't credibly claim that ESR is not right wing.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:19 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

I don't condone slurs either, but I've heard plenty go completely unmoderated, which is really what this is all about. I am fairly well situated right in the middle, and probably have been for most of my life, barring a period where I was further left in my youth. From here, it all looks stupid, and it's not longer entertaining watching everyone throw shit when it is interupting real work.

I don't like extreme far right politics, but I'm not to fond of it's opposite either. Still I don't go looking for trouble, but when it is largely derailing a community I care about, that's another story. I really don't care what people's political persuasions are though, that's not what this is about. It's about a consistent bias, and moreso, a clear preference for political posturing over getting actual work done.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 13:24 UTC (Tue) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]

mate, a person who writes a screed full to the brim with right-wing talking points and dogwhistles was *never* situated in the centre.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:01 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

> there are not far right people in tech, because there are basically no right wingers in tech

If only this were true. Unfortunately, there are still many, though they're thankfully less and less welcome in many Open Source projects. They're *much much* more common in corporate tech.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:18 UTC (Mon) by atnot (subscriber, #124910) [Link]

> because there are basically no right wingers in tech

This is such an obviously false and disingenuous statement that it should disqualify you from ever being taken in good faith on this web site again

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 22:25 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]

I would say the same of yours, but if you scroll up a bit you can see a retraction. If there was an edit button on this site I would have edited it.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 29, 2024 23:46 UTC (Mon) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link]

My impression, from observing this from afar, is the people claiming there is a "leadership crisis" are very political and are trying to push a project founder out because he disagrees with their politics. The primary trigger for this was a dispute over whether a conference should accept sponsorship from a company to which some community members have a moral objection. I don't think open source projects should be sidetracked by those kinds of disputes. It is also noteworthy how they claim a "consensus" had formed – even though it obviously didn't include the project founder, which makes it questionable whether it was really a "consensus" – and then when the project founder disagrees with it, this is viewed as objectionable behaviour ("relitigating"). I don't think the project founder should leave, I think the people responsible for this polticisation of an open source project should be the ones to leave.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 1:39 UTC (Tue) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]

little more nuance when a "consensus" revolved around avoiding relationships with a military company that effectively makes weapons usable for mass murder out of FOSS legos.

"the project founder disagrees with it" -> "I want to make money pushing weapon sales and accept blood money to put tacit recruitment banners up at our conference"

That visceral description changes the situation quite significantly to how you described the 10,000 foot view, absent of the politicalizing.

Although I respect that, strictly from the license perspective, they are free to make use of those legos, we-the-people too, are free to collectively refuse to be involved with their usage to harm others.

<s> "But that's just my opinion, and I could be Dennis Miller." </s>

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 3:28 UTC (Tue) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link]

If a legal business wants to contribute to an open source project (in whatever capacity), I don't agree with trying to stop them just because some project members have a moral objection to what that business (allegedly) does.

The fact is, different people have different moral perspectives, and a business which is viewed as highly immoral to some, will not be viewed the same way by others. Going down this path just results in one section of opinion within an open source project trying to hijack the project to force their morality on everyone else, which is a big distraction from what the project is supposed to be about (something technical, not something moral).

I think this case is especially egregious: the project founder obviously doesn't share that moral perspective, and then when the project founder pushes back against this, the response is to try to get him removed from his position in the project. Someone starts something to solve a technical problem, and now a group of activists are trying to turn it into a vehicle to push their own moral views on everybody else.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 5:58 UTC (Tue) by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958) [Link]

This could easily be solved by taking a vote.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 7:08 UTC (Tue) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link]

An open source project isn't necessarily a "one person one vote" democracy though. Many projects are set up so some people's opinions count for more than others. Generally, the opinions of people who've contributed more (whether historically or presently) tend to count more. Sometimes this is expressed through mechanisms such as giving a project founder a veto, or having a handpicked self-perpetuating leadership group. If people don't agree, they can always fork.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 15:46 UTC (Tue) by xedrac (guest, #171236) [Link]

I never understood why an open source project would reject sponsorship, unless some serious strings were attached. I'm curious if Anduril's offer to sponsor Nix came with such strings attached, or do people simply find their work morally objectionable? If it's the latter, do those same people find it objectionable that we send weapons to Ukraine to defend against Russian invasion? I am very confused. I don't think it's fair to the Nix community to reject free resources based on a few people's strange political views.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 6:47 UTC (Tue) by jafd (subscriber, #129642) [Link]

Maybe you don’t realize it, but weapons can be both offensive and defensive, and without defensive weaponry, once a bad actor enters your place with the intent to kill you, you are toast.

In this case, the refusal “to harm others” is exposing many innocent lives to harm by people who do their thing and perceive your moral high ground as a weakness.

The peacewashing rhetoric you are using is so one-sided and completely blind to the world we are living in that it alone would make me side with Mr. Dolstra, despite any and all his alleged shortcomings as a community builder.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 16, 2024 23:43 UTC (Thu) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]

This is about developers and the broader community not wanting to be associated with military defense contractors. A desire that is entirely reasonable and makes no broad statement about whether offensive or defensive military weaponry is justified.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 5:16 UTC (Tue) by rgb (subscriber, #57129) [Link]

Since much of the development of internet technology was funded by the DOD maybe we should all just unplug our TCP/IP stack right now. Cut your network cables, drown your smart phones and enjoy the silence.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 8:18 UTC (Tue) by jafd (subscriber, #129642) [Link]

I see what you want to say, but it still somehow is making me feel wistful.

Thank you, Anduril!

Posted Apr 30, 2024 19:29 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Anduril does a great job giving back to the community. They publish a NixOS version for NVidia Jetson devices. Just days ago, they pushed a commit that fixes a kernel crash in random number generator. I was going to dig into that issue, it would take me weeks or months to figure it out. Anduril shared their fix for free.

I think people confuse Anduril and Palantir when they talk about the role of Peter Thiel. I don't think there is any significant connection between Anduril and Peter Thiel at this time. Sure, there is a connection through the Founders Fund. Some people left Palantir for Anduril. But it's not like Peter Thiel runs Anduril.

Finally, you don't have to build a killer drone with Anduril contributed code. Make a tree hugging drone, a satellite, an underwater vehicle, you name it. And you don't have to pay Anduril anything.

Thank you, Anduril!

Posted May 7, 2024 17:18 UTC (Tue) by anglerfish (subscriber, #159271) [Link]

Palmer Luckey is just as fascist as Thiel. Most of the FF affiliates are. It's not like they even care to hide it, they're all posting Lee Kuan Yew memes and 14 words analogues whenever they take a break from begging the DOD for taxpayer dollars.

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted Apr 30, 2024 19:29 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> Does DetSys have or had relationships with Anduril?" Christensen replied: "Did you know this category of question is pretty much impossible to answer because NDAs are a thing?"

This is a stunningly embarassing way to answer "yes".

If some Nix rule requires _disclosing_ this sort of relationships, then that sort of _Non-Disclosure_ Agreement could not have and should not have been signed in the first place!

If there is no such disclosure rule in Nix then the correct answer is: "You're not allowed to ask this question", not: "NDAs are a thing".

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 3, 2024 14:20 UTC (Fri) by koh (subscriber, #101482) [Link]

> If there is no such disclosure rule in Nix then the correct answer is: "You're not allowed to ask this question"

Certainly not. Restricting the questions permissable to ask by virtue of *not* having a rule is the very core of totalitarianism.

The correct answer would be "/* no comment */".

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 3, 2024 23:06 UTC (Fri) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

Correct, that's what I should have written.

Plus I really enjoyed the irony of correcting my exageration with something even more over the top (totalitarianism)

A leadership crisis in the Nix community

Posted May 4, 2024 10:58 UTC (Sat) by motiejus (subscriber, #92837) [Link]

I've been using NixOS on all my personal systems for about 2 years now. I maintain a few nixpkgs.

It's fascinating that I hear about the drama only now, from lwn. I had no idea.

Technical work keeps going regardless of drama. I surely wish and hope it will stay that way.


Copyright © 2024, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds