@dvzrv@chaos.social I have to admit that I'm slightly confused about the nature of this article.

It seems to imply that NGI is breaking some sort of principle of neutrality, but I've never known NGI as an organization that *claims* to be neutral to begin with? I've always seen it communicated as having a subjective selection round. Maybe they claim neutrality somewhere, but I missed it?

Is the argument here that it shouldn't have subjective selection? Because then the article doesn't seem to do much by way of providing arguments for that (or reasoning about how true neutrality would even be possible here).

Is the argument that the subjective selection should be on the basis of different judgment criteria? Because the article doesn't seem to provide any explanation of how it should be judged instead, and why.

Is it just meant as a heads-up for people working on non-Nix package managers that applying for a grant is unlikely to succeed? Because then I don't understand why there's all the focus on a "conflict of interest" - it seems that a much shorter article would suffice.

So I genuinely don't understand what point the article is trying to make here exactly?

(I do think that rejecting a grant application with a generic message is not really okay, but that seems to be a separate issue from what the rest of the article talks about.)