https://discourse.nixos.org/t/much-ado-about-nothing/44236
Not directly related to this blog post but from NixOS discourse forum, a tl;dr from another person about the NixOS drama here :
If you’re looking for a TL;DR of the situation, here it is: Nix community had a governance crisis for years. While there has been progress on building explicit teams to govern the project, it continued to fundamentally rely on implicit authority and soft power Eelco Dolstra, as one of the biggest holders of this implicit authority and soft power, has continuously abused this authority to push his decisions, and to block decisions that he doesn’t like Crucially, he also used his implicit authority to block any progress on solving this governance crisis and establishing systems with explicit authority This has led uncountably many people to burn out over the issue, and culminated in writing an open letter to have Eelco resign from all formal positions in the project and take a 6 month break from any involvement in the community Eelco wrote a response that largely dismisses the issues brought up, and advertises his company’s community as a substitute for Nix community
You must log in or register to comment.
Half the article, or more, is a description of evengalian plot. That’s some wild shit man, none of that was in any way relevent. Imma use this tactic myself.
“I’m sorry, but I am breaking up with you. You do deserve an explination as to why though but to properly convey my emotions first I’ll have to describe the entire through plot of blues clues”
Holy shit the comments on this one are vile. If you don’t like the article, don’t read it and go on with your day.
The footer of the blog shows a Nix file structure, skimming their blog they wrote a bunch of articles and guides for Nix, checking their repo they have a bunch of Nix work, they’re not exactly a nobody (if you couldn’t judge from the people saying they’ll miss them on the Nix forum post)
This entire article is an extension of https://save-nix-together.org which is the actual thing that sparked the the gasoline covered Nix community, this will probably seem more coherent with that background.
Thanks for the background, as a very recent nix adopter this drama seems like a lot 😥
I didn’t understand a thing about what the actual issues were.
Based on comments I can see that Jon Ringer objected to inserting gender minority person as a requirement for committee board.
So, why is he wrong? I totally agree that gender minorities deserve recognition, but making it a hard requirement for having a committee board sounds like nepotism.
This is a basic represention and inclusion issue. Unless you are actively seeking out voices of those minorities and addressing their concerns you will have a reinforcing loop where behaviour that puts people off engaging will continue and it will continue to limit people from those minorities being involved (and in the worst case causing active harm to some people who end getting involved). From what I understand the behaviour that has been demonstrated and from who those people leaving it is clear this is active issue within Nix. Having a diverse range of people and perspectives will actually make the outputs (software) and community generally better. It’s about recognising the problems in the formal and informal structures you are creating and working to address them.
Additionally, but just to clarify nepotism would be giving positions based on relationships with people in power and not ensuring that your board contains a more representative set of backgrounds and perspectives.
Suppose I have 1000 people from community and 10 out of them are gender minorities. I then have 5 projects, each with 10 members on board committee, and I want a representative of gender minority in each of them. And I choose hard workers based on merit, the best of the best.
In such case I will be choosing 9*5 = 45 people out of 1000, and specifically I add 1*5 = 5 people out of those 10.
So the board committees will have 45 members each with (worst case) 955/1000 = 95.5% percentile performance, and additionally 5 members of gender minorities, each with mediocre 5/10 = 50% performance.
The gender minorities will perform worse, because we specifically singled them out of the crowd. This is not how you improve diversity.
Others have replied pointing out this is a strawman and that merit doesn’t make any sense as a metric if you have discrimination. In practice performance (‘merit’) is complex interaction between an individual’s skills and talent and the environment and support they get to thrive. If you have an environment that structurally and openly discriminates against a certain subclass of people and then chose on “merit” you are just further entrenching that discrimination.
This is a project that seemed to be having specific problems on gender that was causing harm and leading to losing talent. In a voluntary role particularly this is a death spiral for the project as a whole. Without goodwill and passion open source projects of any meaningful size just wouldn’t survive.
I’m glad you care enough about diversity and evidence to have worked out how to solve these problems without empowering and listening to those minorities. Please do share it.
Others have replied pointing out this is a strawman and that merit doesn’t make any sense as a metric if you have discrimination.
So remove discrimination. Put in the CoC that any information about gender, race, religion and so on must not be disclosed since it is not relevant to the quality of the code/work you submit. Then you have merit only.
I really find stupid that someone really think that his contribution must be accepted just because he is from a minority, irregardless the quality.
You say remove discrimination and then use a discriminatory strawman. No one is suggesting a code contribution must be accepted based on a minority status. They are saying that to get a decent functioning community for everyone you need a diverse range of people in positions that set the behaviour of the community. You can’t get the CoC and enforcement of it right unless those affected are in positions that influence it. Your enforced anonymity doesn’t work because there are other ways of gendering and racialising people (e.g. based on who people talk). Additionally, what you are saying is that minoritised people have to hide who they are so they don’t get discriminated against rather than just deal with those doing the discrimination. They are called communities because that’s what’s they are: people want to be part of something and that involves sharing a part of themselves too. Open source projects live or die on their communities because they mostly don’t have the finances to just pay people to do the work. You need people to beleive in the project and not burn out etc.
You lose nothing by making sure people from all backgrounds have the same opportunity and enjoyment being part of it. If you aren’t in a minority and don’t care about those that are then just say so!
It is impossible to satisfy all minorities at once. The best outcome is to pick an adequate, sane person from the community with proper mindset and proper judgement, irrelevant if they’re from a minority or not.
It’s not about “satisfying the minorities”. It’s about ensuring a basic base level of respect and behaviour for people from all backgrounds. The roles you are talking about were specifically to deal with the fact there was an active problem around that minority in that community that needed dealing with. So bringing in that lived experience is absolutely important. Someone can be adequate, sane, have “proper” mindset and judgement and be from a minority that is currently being targeted with lived experience of the problem. Dealing with issues around diversity and inclusion make life easier and better for everyone: it’s well evidenced. I benefit daily from work that’s been done to make my area easier for people with disabilities despite not having one. Those only came about by people with disabilities challenging and getting in the room where decisions are made.
It’s really not that hard! If you don’t feel minoritised in your daily life and therefore don’t see the importance, fine, but all of us are only one incident or cultural shift to end up being the target so if you aren’t motivated by the plight of people you are happy to “other” than do so because one day you might be the other.
You say remove discrimination and then use a discriminatory strawman.
Why ? Because I basically say “keep these personal informations for yourself since they are not needed while developing” ?
No one is suggesting a code contribution must be accepted based on a minority status.
But they are saying that a board member should be elected based on the fact that he came from a minority, which is as wrong as asking that a code contribution should be accepted based on the minority status.
They are saying that to get a decent functioning community for everyone you need a diverse range of people in positions that set the behaviour of the community.
Agree on this. My point though is that the people in these positions need to be there for the merit and not for a status.
You can’t get the CoC and enforcement of it right unless those affected are in positions that influence it.
Nope. You can enforce a CoC if the ones delegated to enforce it are acknowledged as authoritative people and there is a clear path to do it. If you put a person in charge to enforce the code “just becasue [insert your favorite minority reason]” you end in the same place: the CoC will be selectively enforced only on a certain group of people.
Your enforced anonymity doesn’t work because there are other ways of gendering and racialising people (e.g. based on who people talk).
Assuming you track them outside the project, yes you are right.
Additionally, what you are saying is that minoritised people have to hide who they are so they don’t get discriminated against rather than just deal with those doing the discrimination.
That is what you are saying now, not me.
I said that I don’t care about what your identity is but only about the quality of your work, why did you assume that i mean that only the minorities should not disclose these informations ?Else explain to me why it is relevant that the pull request just created is done by someone from a minority group.
You lose nothing by making sure people from all backgrounds have the same opportunity and enjoyment being part of it.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome. I lose something if a board member of the project I contribute is elected only because he is from a minority group because he replace a more knowledgeable member and the average quality of the work decline.
If you aren’t in a minority and don’t care about those that are then just say so!
It is not that I don’t care, it is that in certain situation it not pertinent if you are from a minority or not. Software development, particularly OSS where the entry point is really low, is one of this situation: why I should care about the group you are part of when you submit a contribute ? How it is pertinent. Do you want to have a voice in the project ? Earn it by contributing and being better of the ones you think are bad and or toxic. But wanting to have a say in the project “just because” is toxic too.
There are two tensions here:
- Community building
- Code production
Community building can be done without any coding, coding can be done without any community. However, to build a large project you need them both.
In a large volunteer project like this, not everything can be worked on. You become selective. We are going to major on this thing, or specifically talk about that project to get community engagement and get the thing done. This drives the project, she helps it to stop chasing hairs. Someone has to decide what feature is going in this release to make it ready to be a release candidate.
That group of people, ultimately making and influencing those decisions, is the CoC.
Let’s take a for-instance: Sign up boxes.
For years, Linux sign up allows you to record random data into your profile, office, phone number, etc. These are text, and can be anything. Now, what if there’s a rising need to add a minicom number(minix, used to be used by the deaf to send messages to an organisation, before email). As a hearing person, this is going to be a low priority for me, so I work on something else. I’ve got spare capacity, so if the project leaders are calling for help on this thing, I can go and help.
This, ultimately, builds a better over-all product, but it’s not something I’d have noticed by myself, because I’m not part of the deaf community.
In our example with NixOS, asking for someone from the community to be a representative on it is not about code quality, but about the issue of visibility. Is there some need that that section of the community needs? Is there a way that the community can do y thing to make the os as a whole more accessible? I don’t know the answer, because I’m not a member of that community, just as I’m not a member of the deaf community.
In this case, the merit, the qualification, for being on the CoC is being a member of a section of the community. It brings valuable a viewpoint, and adds a voice at the table that can make a real difference. Most coders know that having a wish list of features at the start can make it infinitely easier to add them, than having to go back an rewrite to make them happen. Having a voice that might need that feature makes a difference
The debate for CoC is about merit, but merit isn’t just stubbornly focused on a single talent, it can also be about life experience.
I think you are right here. By cherry-picking gender minorities we sow a dissent and we underline their “otherness” from everyone else.
I am from an ethnic minority myself, and somehow people perceive us as maniacs and killers, try to burn our houses and fire us from work. Often it’s the same people who preach equality and diversity. Somehow in my case they don’t care about “empowerment” or “representation” at all. And somehow, the only place I feel comfortable is 4chan, where no one gives a damn who you are, and everyone’s racist and sexist. To everyone else. Equally.
DEI requirements is not nepotism, but let’s take on the core issue I think you brought up: meritocracy. If you show me two people with the same level of skill and experience, I would say the one that came from the most disadvantaged environment is more qualified because they were able to get to the same level with less support.
But you brought in numbers, let me do the same. L Consider that the minority group you mentioned actually has greater barriers to participate, so those 10 people might actually perform better than 80% of the 1000 of the majority group. Assuming both groups have the same distribution of merit is a fallacy.
If the community itself is discriminating, there’s no way out than to fight or wait for an opportunity. We don’t see black empowerment in China or a pride parade in Iran.
What I saw in Nix community right now is someone proposed an affirmative action and Jon refused. I don’t see discrimination here.
pride parade in Iran.
I suggest to look at the history of Iran.
Your argument is a bit weird. People are suggesting for more diversity. Then you seem to say that’s bad because they should wait until an opportunity that people fight for more diversity? I’m not following.
Iran is ruled by IRGC right now. If the community is discriminating to begin with, you have to fight. I’m yet to see how Nix community is discriminating. What I saw is that an active developer got actually banned just for arguing against an affirmative action.
Are you reading what you wrote? It’s full of contradictions.
It seems you think that people should be free from consequences until a certain level is surpassed? That’s rather arbitrary.
What I saw is that an active developer got actually banned just for arguing against an affirmative action.
It’s often not as simple as how you summarize this. Above is awfully similar to the incorrect claim of “cancel culture”. While often that meant that people think someone should be able to do as they please without any consequences. Except for things they dislike, then there should be consequences.
We don’t see black empowerment in China or a pride parade in Iran.
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
Hold up, let me just make up some numbers real quick to prove how wrong you are!
He is not wrong though.
Number aside, if you have a hard requirement that in a committee board there should be someone from a minority then you will end in a situation where the committee perform worse because the “forced” member has no merit to be in, or at least it is an very high probability.where the committee perform worse because the “forced” member
Ah, the common strawman. A committee where everyone thinks pretty much the same is somehow better than one where a few have a different opinion?
Such discussions took place decades ago when pretty much every manager was only male. And they often honestly thought they did the right thing. When there were more women forced to be managers the group as a whole got better insights into different opinions. Which helped to see that certain things could be done a different way.
That to me is history, plus rather logical.
Having a few people with different opinions is further usually good for a committee. Though some like every single person to think the same, more efficient or something. If most think the same it’s way easier to overlook something.
where the committee perform worse because the “forced” member
Ah, the common strawman. A committee where everyone thinks pretty much the same is somehow better than one where a few have a different opinion?
Sometime yes, sometime not.
It all depend on the context. The direction of a project ? Then maybe the fact that the committee has at least roughly the same vision is a good thing, it keep the project focused and progressing, as long as there is a way to offer suggestions.
A political group ? Then it is better to have more points of view, as long as you can decide something in the end.
There is not a single best solution.
Such discussions took place decades ago when pretty much every manager was only male. And they often honestly thought they did the right thing. When there were more women forced to be managers the group as a whole got better insights into different opinions. Which helped to see that certain things could be done a different way.
That to me is history, plus rather logical.
On the other hand I can point to examples where when a woman, to stay within your example, were put in charge the result were disastrous, so what ?
Maybe if we start to think that being in some groups does not inherently make you a better candidate to something than we will start to solve the problem.Having a few people with different opinions is further usually good for a committee.
As long as they know what they are talking about yes, else it is just stupid.
The point of all this discussion is that Jon Ringer objected to have an hard requirement for one person in the committee need to be from a minority, which honestly is not that stupid thing to say.
i’d like to see how you’d be measuring “performance” in this context, or what you consider to be worthy of merit, because those things are not the objective measures you seem to think they are.
people who are contributing to open source projects are not a perfect Gaussian distribution of best to worst “performance” you can just pluck the highest percentile contributors from. its a complex web of passionate humans who are more or less engaged with the project, having a range of overlapping skillsets, personalities, passions, and goals that all might affect their utility and opinions in a decision making context. projects aren’t equations you plug the “best people” into to achieve the optimal results, they’re collaborative efforts subject to complex limitations and the personal goals of each contributor, whose outcome relies heavily on the perspectives of the people running the project. the idea you can objectively sort, identify, and recruit the 50 “best people” to manage a project is a fantasy, and a naive one.
the point of mandating the inclusion of minority groups in decision making is to make it more likely your project and community will be inclusive to that group of people. the skillsets, passions, and goals that a diverse committee contains are more likely to create a project that is useful and welcoming to more kinds of people, and a committee that is not diverse is less likely to do so. stuff like this is how you improve diversity. in fact, its quite hard to do it any other way.
The biggest red flag here is that someone is trying to derive meaning from Eva, an anime whose religious/philosophical imagery and themes were used “just because they looked and sounded cool” (not a direct quote.) I mean I like it too, but it’s gibberish.
I’ll say this about OSS and the community around it: It’s painfully obvious at times that while the individuals working on these projects (often thanklessly) are brilliant people, they often lack the communication and project leadership skills necessary to make a project thrive. The last few posts I’ve seen on this particular issue have been extremely vague and for whatever reason just won’t come out and say what they mean. They’re verbose, go off on tangents, and beat around the bush. We must first have explained to us the plots of TV shows, movies, and other ancillary things in order to understand what likely boils down to “people with differing viewpoints cannot find common ground.” I see the linked blog post as nothing more than someone trying to work out relatively complex feelings about the time/effort they contributed to a project they no longer have faith in more than an “expose-eh.” Given that people in the comments of previous threads have boiled the issue with NixOS down to a sentence or two, I think this is an accurate view.
See: Soft skills.
I’m not gonna read this person’s Evangelion analogy, but I did go to the trouble to hunt down what Jon Ringer actually did.
I don’t agree with him, and representation of particular minority groups, including gender minorities, are important when they are particularly under attack. It is important to actively resist the marginalization of groups under attack by elevating their voices.
That said, I’m not sure what Jon did was actually “actionable”. I’d say, stop listening to him and treating him as a leader? As someone with lots of close trans friends, I think this guy lowkey sucks, but I think this suspension is weird.
I’m not gonna read this person’s Evangelion analogy, but I did go to the trouble to hunt down what Jon Ringer actually did.
Here’s a link.
Thanks. From the same page I found this which has a tl;dr which is maybe useful for other readers.
The open letter is very vague at some points. It tries to outline some real issues that require years of context to fully grasp. Without having this necessary context - it is very hard to follow some of the points made, and evidence seems very poor.
This repository aims to list some key points that are easy to understand without all of the context. This is a compilation of damning evidence for Eelco’s leadership, essentially.
If you’re looking for a TL;DR of the situation, here it is:
-
Nix community had a governance crisis for years. While there has been progress on building explicit teams to govern the project, it continued to fundamentally rely on implicit authority and soft power
-
Eelco Dolstra, as one of the biggest holders of this implicit authority and soft power, has continuously abused this authority to push his decisions, and to block decisions that he doesn’t like
-
Crucially, he also used his implicit authority to block any progress on solving this governance crisis and establishing systems with explicit authority
-
This has led uncountably many people to burn out over the issue, and culminated in writing an open letter to have Eelco resign from all formal positions in the project and take a 6 month break from any involvement in the community
-
Eelco wrote a response that largely dismisses the issues brought up, and advertises his company’s community as a substitute for Nix community
Through some further exploration I’ve also been able to find this which seems relevent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_Genesis_Evangelion
Here’s some points the source states:
In 2015, 15 years after a global cataclysm called the Second Impact, teenager Shinji Ikari is summoned to the futuristic city of Tokyo-3 by his estranged father Gendo Ikari, who is the director of the special paramilitary force Nerv. Shinji witnesses United Nations forces battling an Angel, one of a race of monstrous beings whose awakening was foretold in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because of the Angels’ near-impenetrable force-fields, Nerv’s Evangelion bio-machines, which are synchronized to their pilots’ nervous systems and possess their own force-fields, are the only weapons capable of fighting the Angels. Nerv officer Misato Katsuragi escorts Shinji into the Nerv complex beneath Tokyo-3, where Gendo pressures him into piloting Evangelion Unit-01 against the Angel. Without training, Shinji is quickly overwhelmed, causing the Evangelion to go berserk and savagely kill the Angel on its own.Following hospitalization, Shinji moves in with Misato and settles into life in Tokyo-3. In his second battle, Shinji defeats an Angel but runs away afterward, distraught. Misato confronts Shinji, and he decides to remain a pilot. Shinji and Nerv’s crew must defeat the remaining fourteen Angels to prevent the Third Impact, a global cataclysm that would destroy the world. Evangelion Unit-00 is repaired shortly afterward, and Shinji tries to befriend its pilot Rei Ayanami, a mysterious and socially isolated teenage girl. With Rei’s help, Shinji defeats another Angel. They are joined by Evangelion Unit-02’s pilot, the multitalented but insufferable teenager Asuka Langley Sōryu, who is German-Japanese-American. The three of them manage to defeat several Angels, and as Shinji adjusts to his new role as a pilot, he gradually becomes more confident and self-assured. Asuka moves in with Shinji, and they begin to develop confusing feelings for one another, kissing at her provocation.
After being absorbed by an Angel, Shinji breaks free thanks to Eva-01 acting on its own. He is later forced to fight Evangelion Unit-03, who has become infected, and its pilot, his friend and classmate Toji Suzuhara, becomes incapacitated and permanently disabled. Asuka loses her self-confidence following a defeat and spirals into depression, which is worsened by her next fight against an Angel who attacks her mind. It forces her to relive her worst fears and childhood trauma, resulting in a mental breakdown. In the next battle, Rei sacrifices herself to self-destruct Unit-00 and save Shinji. Misato and Shinji visit the hospital, where they find Rei alive, but claiming she is “the third Rei”. Misato forces the scientist Ritsuko Akagi to reveal the dark secrets of Nerv, the Evangelion boneyard, and the Dummy Plug system, which operates using clones of Rei, who was created using the DNA of Shinji’s mother, Yui Ikari. This succession of events leaves Shinji emotionally scarred and alienated from the rest of the characters. Kaworu Nagisa replaces the catatonic Asuka as Unit-02’s pilot and befriends Shinji, gaining his trust. He is revealed to be the final foretold Angel, Tabris, and fights Shinji, realizing that he must die to allow humanity to survive. He asks Shinji to kill him, and he hesitates but eventually kills Kaworu; an event that causes him to be overridden with guilt.
After the final Angel is defeated, Gendo triggers the “Human Instrumentality Project”, a forced evolution of humanity in which the souls of mankind are merged for benevolent purposes. He believes that if unified, humanity could overcome the loneliness and alienation that has eternally plagued them. Shinji’s soul grapples with the reason for his existence and reaches an epiphany that he needs others to thrive and to accept himself by seeing a potential Shinji in another reality. This enables him to destroy the wall of negative emotions that torment him and unites with the others, who congratulate him.
-
My personal bias: I really don’t like NixOS, tried it for four months and found that the config file was an annoying way of handling general system and package management (especially since there was a completely parallel nix package manager with a cli interface which I find redundant at best)
Bro actin like he got some serious dirt on the project with his emails, but all he talks about is evangeleon, how moderation is hard, one blogpost from the big boss of the project that he eleges (idk how to spell that) wasn’t accepted well (no sauce tho), and how some maintainer(s?) left. This article is a waste of time, and adds nothing to the discussion
Looking at this from the outside as a non Nix user, I see two things:
- The community is melting down over something.
- If this is the state of the Nix community where will the support go when it fractures?
If I was asked to evaluate NixOS for something and saw this, I’d keep looking, because this spells disaster for ongoing maintenance.
Not the drama itself should influence your judgment, but how they will deal with it.
Whenever people work together on something, there will be some drama, but if they are dealing with it, then that should be fine.
Nix and NixOS are big enough, that even if it fails, there are enough other people that will continue it, maybe under a different name.
Even it that causes a hard fork, which I currently think is unlikely, there are may examples where that worked and resolved itself over time, without too much of burden on the users, meaning there are clear migration processes available: owncloud/nextcloud, Gogs/Gitea/Forgejo, redis/valkey, …
Guix is a pretty good evolution of nix IMHO. I like both through
That reads like someone with minor mental illness. Rambling. Evangelion. Rambling.
I clicked their resume and there’s no evidence they contributed a single line of code to the project. Yet they demand the person who wrote most of it step down? Yeah.
Write your own project and manage it how you want. Don’t threaten others. Do your own thing.
I’d just like to remind the passing reader that creating an open source project does not entitle you to do whatever you want and tell people to “make their own thing” if they don’t like it. Open source projects are the result of a massive collaborative effort and the resulting work is the product of a whole community laboring to make it happen. Signed: someone with a major mental illness.
does not entitle you to do whatever you want and tell people to “make their own thing” if they don’t like it.
He not only wrote it but made it open source so if anyone doesn’t like what he’s doing they can take all of his work and make their own project.
The author of NixOS couldn’t have been more generous. If anyone doesn’t like it, they can take all his work that he did for free and make it their own project.
Threatening the creator is wrong.
I understand that and it is indeed a good thing to publicly license your work rather than keep that to yourself. Still, no matter how virtuous one’s actions are, that does not mean the people who come to deposit their time and work for a project should accept everything that person does simply because they started it.
People are entitled to argue about the project they participate in, and that is even more true for open source software, where the contributions of the community eventually become much greater than any single human can accomplish. I really do not understand this mentality of “this person created it, therefore if you don’t like any of their decision suck it up or go make your own fork”, it is very narrow and a horrible way to conduct anything, really anything, much less a collaborative project.
should accept everything that person does simply because they started it.
They don’t have to!!! He gave it to you for free to do with it what you want.
Giving you something for free doesn’t entitle you to threaten him.
I think you are missing the part where the community also gives back to the project. At some point the project isn’t really the creation of the original author anymore.
Which doesn’t matter because he’s already given everything to the community. If they want to take it in another direction, he’s already given it to them.
What I don’t get if you don’t like it why fight? It’s OSS just fork it and move on or choose another distro.
I think the easy answer to that is “because it is not as trivial as forking a small app that could run off of a git repo”, it’s a whole operating system involving a lot of infrastructure and a huge community around it. It might get forked, but people fight probably because they see value in what exists and would rather try and advocate for whatever direction they believe is best. Those who would disagree are not very different, just passive.
An even more trivial alternative is settling for “whatever the founder wants” and seeing the ability to fork as the final justification for this mentality. This is a lot less work, but also can amount to doing nothing, even if shitty decisions are being made. Even if that is your stance, you will have to fight for it. The alternative is everyone just sit idly and pretend not to have opinions. I’d much rather embrace the chaos that comes with collaboration and let it find proper processes to manifest.
I think the easy answer to that is “because it is not as trivial as forking a small app that could run off of a git repo”, it’s a whole operating system involving a lot of infrastructure and a huge community around it.
This It’s just an excuse. If the authors of the open letter are active developers and reflect what the majority of the community thinks then they already have the infrastructure (or big part of it, else how the fuck they work ?) and the community behing them. Man, it would not be the first time a distro to be forked.
Hopefully this is satire.
If I create an open source project I can run it however I want. I do not have to create a board to manage it, there are plenty that have a single developer doing all the work, like VLC, and like Sqlite they may or may not even accept PRs. It doesn’t stop it being open source.
If I do create a foundation, I can fill it with whoever I see fit. If there is a board, then generally they have the last say but there are plenty of projects, like Python used to be, where there might be a board but the founder remains the benevolent dictator for life and will stop them doing stupid things that distracts from the core project. Look at Linux, the project is mostly self maintained but Linus will gatekeep anything that doesn’t meet his definition of success.
If my rules for my project is that all board members have to be a furry, then that’s my right, and maybe the board of furries will vote to overturn that. Or maybe they won’t. But you can’t tell me how to run my project, this isn’t a democracy.
The flipside of this is that you as the BDFL are not in any way entitled to community contributions. If they decide to not like your furry board, they are free to fork the project, but splitting the development efforts could very well kill both projects, so sometimes it is better for the project to listen to the community.
Of course I’m not entitled to community contributions. Just as a user, you are not entitled to me fixing your big reports.
That doesn’t stop it being an open source project, and a lot of developers don’t want to deal with a needy community for their own mental health. It was an itch that they scratched.
I guess you can, yeah.
My point is not that you can’t. You clearly can. And many do. The thing is, when you create your foundation that “you fill with whoever you see fit”, when you faithfully believe that the BDFL will “stop them doing stupid things”, or that you get to choose your board members arbitrarily and tell everyone it’s not a democracy like you are proud of running it as a dictatorship, that’s just a incredibly narrow and toxic culture you have set up. It’s not impossible. The ethic you are posing is actually quite widespread in the world I live in, anyone arguing for it will get many around to agree, it’s very assertive and rightful. Still, a shitty choice the way I see it. And from this bleak outset of things, I suppose forking is indeed the only option you have.
My point is not that you can’t
I’d just like to remind the passing reader that creating an open source project does not entitle you to do whatever you want and tell people to “make their own thing” if they don’t like it.
It was literally what you said, even if you didn’t mean it to be. And I don’t think that being a dictator for your project is necessarily “toxic”, I have projects that take contributions and I work on others that do not. Bikeshedding, and horrible politics, are both real things and sometimes for your own sanity, not engaging is the only option because community is not the reason I work on some tasks.
Some projects are just natural candles to moths who will talk to the projects like this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/1at9br4/i_am_new_to_github_and_i_have_lots_to_say/
Fuck that.
What I mean is that no one will stop you. When you ascertain your own right to do it, it doesn’t mean much that I don’t believe you are entitled to it. It’s pretty much common practice. That is more a semantic matter at this point, but yes I stand by that being messed up for a project the size of Nix.
I don’t think that being a dictator for your project is necessarily “toxic”
Yeah, it is not necessarily toxic. It is at a lot more risk of being, though. Even a collectively managed project will mess up and upset the community, but then there is a sense of shared responsibility and more deliberation on what to do. With a BDFL, it’s just whatever. After your project reaches a certain size, that risk keeps increasing… exponentially.
I have projects that take contributions and I work on others that do not
Precisely. You see, if we take this into the context of a smaller project, specially one managed by a single person as you seem to be coming back to, that is a very different context. I don’t think an OSS maintainer should be laboring physically and emotionally to meet the demands of users. That is a well-known problem there. If this person doesn’t even want to have contact with the community and just ship code once an year, fine. They are just sharing things with the world at no cost. In this context, “suck it up and just fork it” is indeed the way to go.
When you take something as big as NixOS though, that can really be inverted. Now you have a very large number of people who are laboring physically and emotionally to sustain a very large project, and the original creator shifts to a very different place to. It’s another discussion entirely.
I think people like you really don’t understand what OSS software is.
What you don’t understand is that OSS let you do what you want with the software I (an possibly others) created but not let you to dictate to me how I must run the project or what direction the project need to go.
We can discuss of course, and maybe sometimes I agree with you and sometimes not (and the contrary) but in the end I am the maintainer so I have the last word.So no, if I create an OSS project and have a vision for it, if you don’t agree I am fully entaitled to say “ok, just make your own, fork mine if you like” to you.
While this is true to an extent, from experience this line of thinking has its limits and is very easy to misapply. On the one hand, yes you can tell people their ideas do not gel with the vision of the project, and sometimes that’s the right call. And sometimes doing this a lot is best for the project.
On the other hand, even if a majority of the work is coming from one person, not only does your community learn your project, they also spend time contributing to it, fixing bugs, and helping other people. I feel it’s only to a project’s benefit to honor them and take difficult suggestions seriously, and get to the root of why those suggestions are coming up. Otherwise you risk pissing off your contributors, who I feel have the right to be annoyed at you and maybe post evangelion themed vent blog posts if you consistently shut down contributors’ needs and fail to adapt to what your users actually want out of your software. And forking, while freeing and playing to the idea of freedom of choice, also splits your userbase and contributors and makes both parties worse off. It really depends on the project, but it pays to maintain buy-in and trust from people who care enough to meaningfully contribute to your project.
While this is true to an extent, from experience this line of thinking has its limits and is very easy to misapply.
If the majority of contributions come from one person, then yeah, maybe that person should dictate everything. Else you’d miss out on all of those contributions, no?
I use Home Assistant. If reported a few bugs. Every single time I get a really friendly response. Often things are fixed quickly. Things are discussed, different opinions seem to be appreciated and considered. This doesn’t mean that they’ll do whatever someone suggests.
What I find funny about the one contributor who does the majority of the work situation is that it can also be seen in a different way.
Home Assistant as a project has grown like crazy. I’m unable to say exactly why that it, I must see it a great accomplishment.
At one point Home Assistant was just one person doing the majority of the work. Nowadays it is far from that. Pointing towards just one person doing most of the work ignores how it maybe could be. Meaning, maybe with “magic” the project would be crazily bigger. With a crazy amount of contributors. With maybe people paid for by companies to contribute.
That’s what I find lacking in the logic as said by some comments (not by you). It’s a comparison of the current status, not of different outcomes. And those outcomes could be worse, or better.
I guess it can be simple like that when you are the maintainer. It is definetly not as simple when there are many of them. Of course you can run it like that and many do, but the whole mentality is pretty limited.
My statement is not that you have to do whatever anyone asks in your project that you maintain. My statement is that a community that contributes towards a project has a say in it. You might want to ignore it, handle it BDFL-style, politely and cynically decline, whatever.
Not really about what is the absolute correct answer. Our values are clearly different. More like what I believe works best in the long term.
I guess it can be simple like that when you are the maintainer. It is definetly not as simple when there are many of them. Of course you can run it like that and many do, but the whole mentality is pretty limited.
Why limited ?. In the end I am pursuing my vision for the project.
Not really about what is the absolute correct answer. Our values are clearly different. More like what I believe works best in the long term.
I just acknowledge that at some point the vision of the author(s) and the vision of the community (or part of it) can differ and that at this point it is better for everyone to follow their vision.
If pursuing your own vision is the sole purpose intended, it would not be limited at all.
Really interesting but I still dont get the title, you might rename it to “TL;DR about the NixOS drama” or something?
The post title is the title of the blog and I’ve added the (==Goodbye NixOS) part to show Fediverse readers it is about NixOS. After several people commented, I have, after a suggestion of a commenter, added the tl;dr (written by another person apparently involved in the NixOS drama) in the post body. After all this I prefer to leave the post title as is.
I love Evangelion. I don’t love this stupid bullshit.
Removed by mod
What makes you think (“identity”) politics are unrelated to software development? Software development is deeply entrenched in politics. It’s just that, just as in most topics that don’t have politics as their main thing, a lot of people would rather pretend it’s not.
Any community of people presupposes politics. If it doesn’t show, most likely it’s a very narrow or homogeneous group of people, which involves excluding/shunning others to defend this narrowness. So that has its own sort of problem too.
What makes you think (“identity”) politics are unrelated to software development?
The fact that the code quality is independent from your “identity” ?
yes because how a factory produces goods is independent from its workers well being, right?
code is made by people, pushing away good contributors will lead to worse code, stressing contributors will lead to worse code, splitting contributor communities will lead to worse code
if you really only care about code quality why are you bothered by identity talk? leave it to those affected and go back looking at code
“Why identity politics bro?”
Says the first guy to bring up identity politics in the thread.
The article didn’t say shit about gender you weirdo. You have hallucinated this.
Jon Ringer’s actual actions did include pushback against representation for trans people. I’ll take your word for it that this article didn’t mention those exchanges; I’m not readin’ all that.
Shit, sorry, you’re a different guy I think? Apologies for that the top comment was deleted.
Still going to restate that removing trans people from the community wouldn’t be identity politics, it’d be hatred
Well I didn’t see the comment you’re apologizing for so, no apology necessary ig?
deleted by creator
I didn’t see where the author brought up gender in this article.
Windows: Ad Ridden
macOS: Not Enough Freedom Apparently
Linux: Community Arguments
Every OS has issues.
Yeah but here’s the thing. The linux community actually has measurable and immediate impact on the OS they choose to involve themselves in.
Have an issue with MacOS or Windows? The absolute best case scenario is that you complain to the devs and they might fix it in a future update.
Have an issue on Linux? Luckily the community you are a part of is also the development team, so you can work together to directly make changes. If those changes aren’t to your satisfaction, you can even find some like-minded people and start your own distro.
deleted by creator
Evangelion? This person is sick, and needs to get some help.
Removed by mod
