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. |
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted May 16, 2024 0:09 UTC (Thu) by DanilaBerezin (subscriber, #168271) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:38 UTC (Mon) by delroth (subscriber, #110092) [Link]
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]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:50 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 14:57 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:01 UTC (Mon) by flussence (subscriber, #85566) [Link]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:17 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted May 6, 2024 20:34 UTC (Mon) by immibis (subscriber, #105511) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 15:24 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:38 UTC (Mon) by snajpa (subscriber, #73467) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted May 2, 2024 9:35 UTC (Thu) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 16:11 UTC (Mon) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]
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]
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]
(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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 20:56 UTC (Mon) by nrdxp (subscriber, #142443) [Link]
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]
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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 29, 2024 23:46 UTC (Mon) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 1:39 UTC (Tue) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]
"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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 7:08 UTC (Tue) by skissane (subscriber, #38675) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 15:46 UTC (Tue) by xedrac (guest, #171236) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 6:47 UTC (Tue) by jafd (subscriber, #129642) [Link]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 5:16 UTC (Tue) by rgb (subscriber, #57129) [Link]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 8:18 UTC (Tue) by jafd (subscriber, #129642) [Link]
Thank you, Anduril!
Posted Apr 30, 2024 19:29 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]
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]
A leadership crisis in the Nix community
Posted Apr 30, 2024 19:29 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
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]
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]
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]
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.