jonringer/my-thoughts

## my-thoughts
This is mostly right on a surface level.
- https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 left some initial scars in the community, many of the players are still involved with the current events.
> and want us all to care that people behaved in a perfectly predictable manner and nothing actually bad happened to you.
I didn't fully expect that level of personal attacks. And this line of logic is similar to victim blaming.
In a lot of ways, my behavior was a continuation of how I felt 3 years ago.
> I started using Nix because I thought it was an interesting and exciting technology; and the ability to leverage Nix will just increase over time as the NixOS ecosystem grows and matures.
> This is still why I continue to be a part of the community: the technology and expertise.
> Hacking and using nixpkgs is still exciting to me; even after years of use. I still learn new things, and nixpkgs is essentially an enormous body of expert knowledge.
> What’s not fun are discussions like RFC 98 101, in which it seems that an agenda is trying to be institutionalized with language like “Model and enforce social norms”. This is concerning to me as that the “Community Team” will be law-maker, judge, jury, and executioner within the community. The language of the RFC is already vague enough to allow any interpretation of what is acceptable behavior. I would comment on RFC itself, but it’s been locked.
Anyway there was really a few struggles going on:
- Foundation not able integrate feedback from community
  - Foundation was initially intended to be "just a bank account" for donations and expenses
  - However, since many of the members were "pillars of the community", it became a backstop for concerns and disputes
  - "Board observers" were added to have a "line of communication" between board and "community"
- Community "governance" not really existing (shared between moderation team and foundation)
  - Foundation was created in 2015, and mostly focused on "strategic goals"
  - Moderation team was created in 2020 to have a sustainable way of moderating community behavior
    - A policy of "reach out to moderation team" for concerns made them into a "point of contact" for all concerns
    - Eventually moderation team became the "voice of the community" (at least the displeased portion)
  - Eventually this became a battle of "who is going to over-rule who"
  - No real "governance" body to do policy pertaining to the community at large.
- Toxic community behavior
- The "de-escalate poor behavior in private" practice giving the appearance of toxic behavior being acceptable/condoned.
- Moderation action seeming to be "heavier" for people who are not of a particular political orientation
The last three were the ones I was "fighting". But my employment put me in conflict with the first two.
I would have liked the first two resolved, which is why I started this thread about MIC sponsorships. It's a discussion that should have occurred after the first EU NixCon controversy, and a line should have been drawn in the sand. Not changing the status quo just allowed for the interim "Apache Software Foundation" policies to not give a compelling reason to decline MIC sponsorships.
	This is mostly right on a surface level.
	- https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98 left some initial scars in the community, many of the players are still involved with the current events.
	> and want us all to care that people behaved in a perfectly predictable manner and nothing actually bad happened to you.
	I didn't fully expect that level of personal attacks. And this line of logic is similar to victim blaming.
	In a lot of ways, my behavior was a continuation of how I felt 3 years ago.
	> I started using Nix because I thought it was an interesting and exciting technology; and the ability to leverage Nix will just increase over time as the NixOS ecosystem grows and matures.
	> This is still why I continue to be a part of the community: the technology and expertise.
	> Hacking and using nixpkgs is still exciting to me; even after years of use. I still learn new things, and nixpkgs is essentially an enormous body of expert knowledge.
	> What’s not fun are discussions like RFC 98 101, in which it seems that an agenda is trying to be institutionalized with language like “Model and enforce social norms”. This is concerning to me as that the “Community Team” will be law-maker, judge, jury, and executioner within the community. The language of the RFC is already vague enough to allow any interpretation of what is acceptable behavior. I would comment on RFC itself, but it’s been locked.
	Anyway there was really a few struggles going on:
	- Foundation not able integrate feedback from community
	- Foundation was initially intended to be "just a bank account" for donations and expenses
	- However, since many of the members were "pillars of the community", it became a backstop for concerns and disputes
	- "Board observers" were added to have a "line of communication" between board and "community"
	- Community "governance" not really existing (shared between moderation team and foundation)
	- Foundation was created in 2015, and mostly focused on "strategic goals"
	- Moderation team was created in 2020 to have a sustainable way of moderating community behavior
	- A policy of "reach out to moderation team" for concerns made them into a "point of contact" for all concerns
	- Eventually moderation team became the "voice of the community" (at least the displeased portion)
	- Eventually this became a battle of "who is going to over-rule who"
	- No real "governance" body to do policy pertaining to the community at large.
	- Toxic community behavior
	- The "de-escalate poor behavior in private" practice giving the appearance of toxic behavior being acceptable/condoned.
	- Moderation action seeming to be "heavier" for people who are not of a particular political orientation
	The last three were the ones I was "fighting". But my employment put me in conflict with the first two.
	I would have liked the first two resolved, which is why I started this thread about MIC sponsorships. It's a discussion that should have occurred after the first EU NixCon controversy, and a line should have been drawn in the sand. Not changing the status quo just allowed for the interim "Apache Software Foundation" policies to not give a compelling reason to decline MIC sponsorships.