xeiaso.net

utubas , to Linux in Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS)

Evangelion? This person is sick, and needs to get some help.

Kanedias , to Linux in Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS)
@Kanedias@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

zerakith ,

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.

Kanedias ,
@Kanedias@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

zerakith ,

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.

gian ,

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.

zerakith ,

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!

Kanedias ,
@Kanedias@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

Kanedias ,
@Kanedias@lemmy.ml avatar

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.

Regalia , to Linux in Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS)
@Regalia@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

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.

xantoxis , to Linux in Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS)

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.

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.

lemmyreader OP ,

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

Blue_Morpho , to Linux in Much ado about "nothing" - Xe Iaso (==Goodbye NixOS)

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.

hagar ,

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.

Blue_Morpho ,

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.

hagar ,

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.

Blue_Morpho ,

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.

Killing_Spark ,

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.

Blue_Morpho ,

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.

frazorth ,

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.

unique_hemp ,

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.

frazorth ,

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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines