Show newer

(Note: this is about untangling already-broken governance with long-standing issues, not about providing your feedback on things that are yet to be decided, of course!)

Show thread

Moral of this story: please *do not* try to involve yourself in governance discussions unless you can commit to being in it for the long haul, because otherwise you will likely just slow down solutions

Show thread

The problem with trying to solve governance issues in public, is that there's going to be a parade of variably well-intentioned people unfamiliar with the background who nevertheless try to contribute to "solving" them, but who in practice mostly just end up taking energy from the people who have been working on it for a while, because they have to explain things over and over again

@ehler @NanoRaptor Shaming neurodiverse and/or disabled folks for not meeting able neurotypical standards on topics that they may not even care about is not how you do that, however.

#Social.coop has been discussing whether to disable images on May 16 and October 10 for #WorldSightDay, as suggested here stefanbohacek.online/@stefan/1.

One concern raised about this proposal is that it is symbolic and might not do anything to improve the lives of people with visual impairments.

I would like to hear perspectives from people with visual impairments on whether this kind of action is helpful.

(boosts welcome; please only reply if you rely on alt text)

#accessibility
#a11y
#AltText

In the family we say to someone complaining that they don't want to go out in the rain: "You're not made of sugar". Is this a common thing elsewhere too?

@ck@chaos.social I'm being deliberately a bit vague here because not all of these issues are public, and I do not want to be putting other folks at risk here

@ck@chaos.social Not exactly - what I'm trying to convey is that leadership (in the Foundation sense) was interfering with leadership (in the team/subproject sense), ie. the top-down hierarchy was getting in the way of people managing their own domain of responsibility.

It's not that people didn't *want* to align and manage their domain of responsibility, it's that they did not feel safe to do so, due to a variety of issues (Eelco being one of them) that all led back to the board.

@NanoRaptor as an European I always thought that "quiet quitting" meant "do the bare minimum for not getting fired". I was surprised when I realized that American colleagues defined it as "do your job but without enthusiasm", this is what I just called "working"

@delroth I would disagree, but for reasons that I cannot publicly elaborate on

@ck@chaos.social From everything I've seen, that lack of alignment is in huge part due to Eelco's tendency to interfere in matters, and therefore nobody wanting to stick out their neck - which goes back to the leadership thing.

If there ever was a case study in "having a legal structure does not automatically safeguard your project governance", well, the situation is probably it.

It's also quite bizarre to see people *already* rewriting history to claim that the project is failing because "it's anarchic and there is no leadership" when the hierarchical side of the project *literally is the root cause of the problem*.

@roberth @samueldr The fact that Eelco needs to "be convinced" on such a regular basis is the problem here, and is exactly why he does in fact have control, regardless of what it says on paper

@serapath @freakazoid The core concept is the same, but there are different ways to deal with rebuilds (grafting vs. not), different packaging policies, and so on - just a different community with different conventions and views basically.

Not inherently worse or anything, just different :)

@freakazoid (The broader community definitely is not the problem here, the issue in NixOS governance is highly concentrated in a few people)

Show older
Pixietown

Small server part of the pixie.town infrastructure. Registration is closed.