NixOS is electing a committee that will elect the new governing body and design its systems.
One popular proposal is for this committee to consist of five people, of which two are intersectionally marginalized. (That is, marginalized in at least two ways) That is, of course, a quota.
Aaron Hall, who objects to all of this, has arrived.
I value fairness and treating everyone equally regardless of their class status. I would be wary of any statements that make some users feel they will be treated less preferentially to others due to their class status, sowing distrust and conflict.
…
It’s a meta comment about distrust and conflict. There has been several comments made on this thread about privileging some people over others. We’re on the internet. Nobody knows who is what class. I suggest we not make those kinds of comments because they are controversial and will lead to arguments and distrust in the broader community if users think they will be treated unfairly because their class is being unprivileged.
…
I know everyone looks at statements that privilege some over others and thinks they are sketchy. (In what way are they privileged? How does that work? Does that mean we get suboptimal decision making so that some class-privileged person can have a seat of responsibility and privilege?)
Nix is very cutting edge, and we’d like to see more diversity. Diversity will come with growth. Controversy will stifle growth. These kinds of statements are going to cause controversy and conflict, stifling the growth that will result in diversity. Instead you may be able to rope in tokens of diversity, but you won’t actually achieve real organic diversity because the growth just isn’t there.
…
Can you explain what did you put in place to obtain that diversity, can you qualify a bit that diversity? I’m looking at statements like “There was BIPOC”, etc. Also, how did you measure that diversity?
We grew. We advertised on Meetup.com. We let companies know we existed so they could host us. We let colleges know we existed so students could find us. We were open to everyone. We made every effort to help everyone who was trying to help themselves.
One of the things we did that helped: We treated people fairly. We did not talk about elevating anyone with privilege over others because of their class.
Who? Black (native, island, African), White (European, Russian, native (all ethnicities)), Asian (Korean, Chinese), Islanders, Native American, Transgendered, very old, very young. etc.
I’m highlighting this because it’s a reoccurrence of the discussion Jon Ringer kept having in apparent bad faith.
??? jfc
literally every time there’s some ridiculous PR that catches social wind you get to see this. hell, you can often see this on comments in such PRs. it’s almost like a site that lends itself well to social characteristics might have social expressions by social humans? but only almost! something like that would clearly be impossible to use.
fucking hell, these cunts. always fucking projection.
by my own count it happens roughly twice monthly now, as the enshittification, commercialization, and fascist takeover of the open source commons picks up its pace. the instances that come to mind are whenever Mozilla pushes LLM bullshit into their projects, the couple of large projects that announced they’re going to stop being open source (taking all their contributors’ code with them, of course), and a bunch of threads related to the xz backdoor. and in almost every case, there’s some shithead with an agenda sitting there fabricating reasons why the 100+ people who found the thread on github must not actually represent public opinion, somehow.
though that’s not saying vote manipulation doesn’t happen; look at the fucking weirdos still downvoting anything critical of Jon in that linked reddit thread, for example. that doesn’t look like a natural traffic pattern to my eye. like you said, it’s always projection.