zlacker

[parent] [thread] 20 comments
1. Laaas+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:38:45
I think it’s important to make clear that the letter is mostly bogus and almost libelous.

Check into any one claim, and you’ll find it’s not the entire story.

This however is true:

> The Foundation board has unrepresentative composition relative to the community because, due to our count, all current members are cisgender, white-passing, men, one of whom has done military service, and one other (Eelco) likely relies on undisclosed military-tech work.

replies(5): >>Pareto+m1 >>retool+N2 >>xyzzy_+C6 >>styxfr+88 >>philod+Ng
2. Pareto+m1[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:44:45
>>Laaas+(OP)
> I think it’s important to make clear that the letter is mostly bogus and almost libelous.

That's not my reading of it.

However my biggest issue is the conflict of interest between Eelco -> DetSys -> Anduril Contract -> Eelco fighting hard for Nix to sponsor Anduril.

As foundation chair he should declare that he doesn't have a conflict of interest and DetSys doesn't have a contract with Anduril or have recused himself from the sponsorship discussion.

replies(1): >>takeda+1l
3. retool+N2[view] [source] 2024-04-29 15:51:08
>>Laaas+(OP)
[flagged]
replies(1): >>giraff+i4
◧◩
4. giraff+i4[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 15:57:20
>>retool+N2
How is it slanderous to point out the board composition is not representative of the community. Seriously walk me through this one.
replies(3): >>Pannon+N5 >>retool+a7 >>ipv6ip+e7
◧◩◪
5. Pannon+N5[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:02:26
>>giraff+i4
Mostly because they have double standards. If 100% of the board was "diverse" in some way, they would claim that it compensates for historical injustices or something. If they were truly serious about inclusion, it would be completely fine, but this is just authoritarian assholes hiding behind the veneer of "fighting against fascism" (in the document posted by @busterarm, some of these people even openly advocate doxxing their political opponents)
replies(1): >>Pareto+P9
6. xyzzy_+C6[view] [source] 2024-04-29 16:05:57
>>Laaas+(OP)
> one other (Eelco) likely relies on undisclosed military-tech work.

While this may be technically true, the framing seems disingenuous, unless I am missing something. I have not been following the situation closely. My understanding is that Eelco's company, Determinate Systems, _may_ have contracts with customers connected to the military-industrial complex, but I dislike the implication as it renders Eelco as a bad-faith actor. It seems like a circular argument. I also dislike the implication that it is somehow problematic for Eelco's _for profit_, separate entity to have customers that the _community_ finds problematic.

replies(1): >>Pareto+ka
◧◩◪
7. retool+a7[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:08:15
>>giraff+i4
I don't believe that the boards composition for engineering and technological organizations or projects should be chosen based on the results of measuring skulls, genetics or what partners they openly prefer for sexual intercourse, that seems unrelated to the work.

The slander against the board is quite obvious and I believe you're being disingenuous.

replies(1): >>giraff+x8
◧◩◪
8. ipv6ip+e7[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:08:23
>>giraff+i4
What is the composition of the nix community?
replies(1): >>Pareto+2a
9. styxfr+88[view] [source] 2024-04-29 16:11:46
>>Laaas+(OP)
if claiming something is bogus, then provide evidence of your claim. otherwise your claim holds less weight than the one you oppose.
◧◩◪◨
10. giraff+x8[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:13:45
>>retool+a7
I was being sincere. I think it's reasonable to expect a governing board to be at least partially representative of the users & contributors of the project. It seems extremely presumptuous at best to tell people their lives & experiences are not relevant to the work they do, and that they are wrong to want people with similar experiences acting in leadership.

So no, I still can't see slander. What is obvious to you is not apparent to me at all so please walk me through it.

replies(1): >>retool+Wi
◧◩◪◨
11. Pareto+P9[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:17:49
>>Pannon+N5
> . If they were truly serious about inclusion, it would be completely fine, but this is just authoritarian assholes hiding behind the veneer of "fighting against fascism"

People arguing from the direction you seem to be usually are big about not assuming intent... why assume intent here?

How can you prove they don't both believe they are fighting about fascism and care about that fight?

replies(1): >>Pannon+rd
◧◩◪◨
12. Pareto+2a[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:18:26
>>ipv6ip+e7
It's not hard to argue "the nix community is not 100% white male".
replies(1): >>ipv6ip+fP
◧◩
13. Pareto+ka[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:19:49
>>xyzzy_+C6
> My understanding is that Eelco's company, Determinate Systems, _may_ have contracts with customers connected to the military-industrial complex, but I dislike the implication as it renders Eelco as a bad-faith actor.

As chair of the foundation, Eelco should do what he can to avoid even the appearance of malfeasance, including declaring or denying conflicts of interest.

◧◩◪◨⬒
14. Pannon+rd[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:30:49
>>Pareto+P9
First, I'm not from that "side" which you think I am. Second, I do assume intent and here it's beyond reasonable doubt that this is about pushing your agenda. I do not dispute that some of these people genuinely believe that they are doing good - either they got brainwashed by others, or they've successfully brainwashed themselves. (In fact, many of us, including me, brainwashed ourself with various things on occasions. It's fairly common)

I won't go over the entire document, but it's pretty telling how they've refused to commit to "no politics" as a rule - because they want to promote theirs! The problem wasn't that sidr linked to politics, but that he linked to the wrong type. (I checked it out and I definitely don't agree with most of it. But that doesn't mean I can't defend his right to speak)

15. philod+Ng[view] [source] 2024-04-29 16:45:05
>>Laaas+(OP)
> Check into any one claim, and you’ll find it’s not the entire story.

Indeed. If you look at pull request 10513, you see Eelco propose a bug fix, another person point out the flaws in his approach, and Eelco subsequently closing his own pull request and filing a new PR with a different approach.

https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/10513

The save-nix-together signatories describe this as “ignoring other people and only considering his way”.

I suppose they were counting on no one bothering to read their citations?

◧◩◪◨⬒
16. retool+Wi[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 16:53:25
>>giraff+x8
I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. Selecting leadership based on immutable characteristics like race, gender or sexuality rather than merit and contributions is misguided and prejudiced, even if motivated by a desire for representation.

The current leaders' "lives & experiences" very much inform their work - their experience contributing to and building the project. What's irrelevant and presumptuous is assuming their race, gender, etc. make them unfit or that "people with similar experiences" (i.e. the same demographics) would necessarily lead better. The slander is in attacking and attempting to de-legitimize the board not based on their actions or competence, but on their identities. That's textbook ad hominem.

Inclusion means welcoming people of all backgrounds, not enforcing demographic quotas or judging people's fitness based on identity rather than ability. If you have substantive concerns about board decisions or project direction, by all means raise them. But leave identity politics out of it and focus on the issues. Presuming leaders can't serve the community well because of innate traits is its own form of prejudice.

The only real criticism of concern was the military contracts and a conflict of interest, which I believe is valid and needs discussion, the rest just seems like personal attacks meant to further some unrelated agenda.

◧◩
17. takeda+1l[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 17:01:43
>>Pareto+m1
The whole idea behind Open Source is that one does not discriminate.

As a Nix user I feel like those people who started this whole drama are actually negative to this project. They are trying to use Nix as a tool for their political goals.

I think the best for Nix would be to just move forward and ignore them.

replies(1): >>Pareto+Yn
◧◩◪
18. Pareto+Yn[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 17:16:57
>>takeda+1l
> As a Nix user I feel like those people who started this whole drama are actually negative to this project.

The people who signed Anduril as a sponsor, apologized to the community, and signed Anduril as a sponsor again anyway started this drama and are a negative.

replies(1): >>takeda+fC
◧◩◪◨
19. takeda+fC[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 18:28:43
>>Pareto+Yn
So what?

The nature of Open Source is that Abduril can use it anyway and it is more whether Nix can get funding to help it become mainstream.

◧◩◪◨⬒
20. ipv6ip+fP[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 19:27:45
>>Pareto+2a
What is it then?
replies(1): >>Pareto+XV
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
21. Pareto+XV[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-04-29 19:53:32
>>ipv6ip+fP
I don't know. I can invalidate the Nix community is 100% white by knowing 1 or more community members that aren't white and/or male... which I do.
[go to top]