Eelco has agreed to step down from the NixOS foundation board. Over the next two weeks, a constitutional assembly will be appointed to draft a constitution to democratically govern Nix/NixOS.
Overall I’m quite pleased with this news, but I’m a bit of a zealot when it comes to democracy. Barring any breakdown of process during the drafting and election phases, I see this as an absolute win, and the first step towards repairing the community.
someone can send me a link explaning what’s happening?
Most is described here (the author probably has some amount of bias but this is the only summary I know of): https://github.com/KFearsoff/nix-drama-explained
Other than that some very active contributors resigned as maintainers in support of the open letters.
And it seems now that the community members in support of the open letters/changes have convinced the board of the foundation to agree on some things.
It’s a hostile takeover by a handful of politically far-left individuals, stealing power away from Nix’s creator, Eelco, framed by them as “giving power to the community,” when they really just want to establish their own oligarchy and run moderation their way.
Just like Eelco’s way of governing, it will likely have 0 effect on 99% of people using NixOS, but a handful of maintainers will be mad. Nothing will change for those out of the loop.
Just like Eelco’s way of governing, it will likely have 0 effect on 99% of people using NixOS,
Flakes not being stabilized, or worked on by Eelco, despite him literally being the inventor absolutely has an effect on every single Nix user. The flakes-nonflakes aplit is part of why the documentation on nix is so poor. Some things only support one or the other, and it’s a pain.
The aux fork of nix (which idk what’s gonna happen to it) said they would stabilize the current implementation of flakes as v0. I hope this new council does the same, because it’s been far too long. So much of the community uses flakes that’s it’s basically official, but it being “experimental” means they can’t be mentioned in official docs, or included by default in the official installer. You have to edit a config file to enable flakes.
The worst part of this all, is that the Determinate Systems nix installer, only comes with flakes and no channels (old way) - and Eelco literally works for Determinate Systems. Despite all of this, flakes are still “experimental”.
I hope things change. Flakes are legitimately better, a minor addition in complexity, in exchange for making it easy to reuse code. And finally having unified documentation and tooling (if flakes become the main way) will probably be the best benefit.
I really hope this council moves flakes put of their “experimental” status. If so, then democracy has spoken: the users want flakes.
How well NixOS and Nixpkgs are maintained absolutely affects users of NixOS. This may have just saved NixOS from becoming an unmaintained or at best slowly maintained project that people advise against using for anything serious.
What I’m saying is that there will be no change in how well they are maintained.
Eelco is also leftist so no (this is said in the open letter) also the maintainers are what make nix be nix so yes, it’s has the potencial to affect a lot of people and the link send explaining the situation has very good arguments(with proofs), that don’t have any correlation with left or right, you need to give a good argument if you want people to belive in you
Eelco is also leftist so no
There’s a difference between a leftist and a left-wing extremist like the handful of people involved with the open letter
also the maintainers are what make nix be nix so yes, it’s has the potencial to affect a lot of people
Yes of course, but the maintainers aren’t really affect either.
What I’m saying is there are only a few maintainers upset right now, and if the tide turns (which it looks like it has) only a few maintainers on the other side will be upset.
My point is overall only a few maintainers will be upset, like 10-20 or so out of thousands, so the status quo will stay the same.
has very good arguments(with proofs)
Not really
that don’t have any correlation with left or right
Strong correlation with far-left extremist ideas, actually
you need to give a good argument if you want people to belive in you
Those writing the open letter didn’t give good arguments, so I don’t need to either
I wonder if the “aux” fork will continue to exist after that. However, if the forums continue to stay toxic, it wouldn’t surprise me if another fork were made.
I wonder if the “aux” fork will continue to exist after that.
Probably not. And that would save potential users from that terrible, unsearchable name.
😂 It is not the best name, that’s for sure. But I was hoping it would allow different technical decisions for example like getting off of github.
I do not like distributed, community-driven leadership. The more leadership is shared, the more arguments there are, and the less gets done.
I would rather have a strong dictatorship focused on technical merit, to be deposed in the future for another dictator, again, based on technical merit.
You are free to set up such a project, instituting yourself as the initial dictator, accepting merit challenges of some specified form, and see whether someone bothers to go for your jugular. Call it KingOfTheHillOS.
…in all seriousness the general issue with merit-based approaches is that you need a way to decide on what “merit” means, and to have an actual project and not a one person show you need a community that shares that definition, and you can’t dispose of the dictator if they have the power to dictate what merit is, so you are left with either a) an unchanging definition which is just as bad as unpatchable software or b) some form of stakeholder democracy.
I would rather have a strong dictatorship focused on technical merit, to be deposed in the future for another dictator, again, based on technical merit.
Normally when I see people say something like this, what they actually mean is “based on technical merit (and also has the right opinions that agree with mine)”. The concern is that democracy will produce outcomes they find disagreeable.
