this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
341 points (97.5% liked)

Linux

58601 readers
681 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Short Summary of the Community Drama of the Linux Distribution "NixOS", so that you can get the big picture and form your own opinion with the provided sources.

Clarification of the "Steering Comittee" as Project Leadership

Moderation Team resigns in Protest

Technical Leadership works for Military Company, causing Fear of Alignment with Facism.

(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

For full independence, why not simply detach development from community?

You can even have multiple independent communities with multiple independent moderation teams all about the same software.

As a developer I've never needed to engage a particular community on a personal level in order to make a PR to a project.. if the technical maintainers want to accept the change, they will, if they won't then that's fine, they probably have their reasons. It's ok to communicate with communities to get feedback, but I'm not making contributions for the social approval, I'm making them when I believe they are useful, and most of the times I write them because I want to have that change myself. If it's rejected and enough other people are interested in the change, it can be forked. That doesn't mean I hate the maintainers or that I don't want the original to exist or anything, it's not personal.

But well, I understand that some communities wanna make software and they intertwine development and social relationships. However, if you do this then I don't see how can independence be a thing. Either separate them and don't intermix them or mix them and don't expect them to be separate.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They're kind of welcoming and accomodating with that. I've sent some drive-by PRs towards NixOS and it was always very easy and productive interactions.

But I guess it's more complicated at that scale. You can't just do whatever like in smaller projects. Someone needs to be in charge of money and finances, there will be dissent that doesn't just go away on its own. And mid- to longterm decisions need to be made. Architecture decisions and sometimes that's not easy and might be contrary to what the community needs and wants right now. It's just a lot of overhead, but larger projects work quite differently from smaller ones.

[–] Ferk@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I get that big projects are not the same, but in my experience there's always a hierarchy, not a collection of independent bodies (except for fan-made communities that are clearly "unofficial", those are independent, sure). It's not unheard of for maintainers at the top of the hierarchy to influence other parts of the organization, like moderation. In fact most open source projects are like that, led by a group of "benevolent dictators".

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I think you're right with that. And it's not like the Free Software community has agreed on some form of project structure. There are projects doing all kinds of stuff from democracy to meritocracy, elitism to dictatorship. Or some of the common ways commercial businesses are laid out. Though I think once someone appoints several bodies, they need to make sure they're both all equipped to do their task, but don't mess with each other at the same time. Everything else is stupid. But I don't know what's right in this specific instance.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

My favorite part was a member of the SC talking about how the moderation team are the only ones who can appoint other moderators when to comments above a user was talking about being approached by a member of the SC the night before who was offering to make them a moderator.

[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 3 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the heads-up, I wasn't aware of this.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›