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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hold up, let me just make up some numbers real quick to prove how wrong you are!
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.
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.
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.
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
alleges*
here’s a better source thanks to OP for sharing it in a different thread.
Why are identity politics even allowed to be discussed in an unrelated field (software development) in the first place? Seems it always just leads to people getting upset when you can just not talk about it as it’s really not related at all to my knowledge.
I can kinda agree here. In the open source community, identity politics should be especially irrelevant. The FOSS licences are explicitly designed in a way to not discriminate based on such factors like race, religion, gender, nationality, biological sex, political views, etc.
However, from what I can gleam from the blog, it seems somehow related to the COC, maintainer behavior and a lack of transparency rather than “identity politics”. In what way, idk because the blog doesn’t seem to specify any specific verifiable incident, at least from what I can tell. But I will say, that if it is a matter of the COC, that the COC is supposed to be a protection of the right for an individual to be able to express themselves in an environment that won’t prosecute them.
So, in this regard it’d make sense to if say someone was being miss gendered maliciously for example, it’d violate the COC. In this regard, the right to express oneself doesn’t give someone the right to harass others because they disagree with how someone else is expressing themselves.
Edits : restructuring and clarification.
“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
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
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.
