---
title: "Political Bikeshedding: NixOS Edition"
description: On Social Dynamics and Leadership
tags:
  - nix
  - politics
author: Tim D
authorGithub: nrdxp
authorImage: https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34083928?v=4
authorTwitter: nrdxp52262
date: "2024-07-02"
category: politics
---

This piece offers a perspective on recent NixOS project challenges from
a long-term contributor. As one of the authors of [RFC 175][175], which
attempted to address moderation issues but faced obstacles in adoption,
the writer brings both experience and a commitment to improving the
project's governance.

Given the complexity of the situation, this article aims to provide a
high-level analysis rather than an exhaustive account. While specific
examples are limited for brevity, future pieces may explore more
detailed case studies. The current goal is to establish a framework for
understanding and addressing broader issues that are increasingly
prevalent across the open-source world.

## The Silent Majority and the Myth of "Community Consensus"

A significant portion, if not the majority, of people likely despise
politics and deliberately disengage from it, focusing on more enjoyable
pursuits. By nature, these individuals aren't necessarily interested in
having their unrelated political or ideological views "represented" in
groups or forums they join for specific interests, such as hacking.

Crucially, this silent majority challenges the notion of a unified
"voice of the community." Many claim to speak on behalf of "the
community," advocating for actions or bans based on supposed community
consensus. However, if a silent majority exists, such claims of
representing the entire community are inherently flawed and potentially
misleading, at best.

The concept of a silent majority and the questionable nature of claimed
community consensus lead us to examine another critical issue: the
misuse of marginalization claims, which many of these voices use as a
foundation. Understanding the contextual and temporal nature of
marginalization is key to addressing this problem.

## Marginalization is Contextual and Temporal

The term "marginal" has no fixed definition outside a specific context.
Consider this scenario: someone stands on the far side of a room while
others gather at a table. This person detects a threat, perhaps a small
fire, only visible from their position. They alert the group and come to
the table to address the issue. Everyone appreciates their input, and by
joining the table, they physically become part of the majority.

Now, imagine another fire starts under the table with everyone seated.
Those at the table, including the previously "marginal" individual,
can't detect this new threat. Their once unique position is lost, and
they're now part of the group that's unaware of the new danger.

It's crucial to note that even this scenario is relative. To another
group or from a broader perspective, everyone at this table could be
considered marginal. This underscores the importance of context: a
marginal position in one setting may be quite common in another.

This relativity is particularly relevant when considering claims of
marginalization within specific communities or projects. Even if
individuals are marginalized in broader society, they may hold majority
or influential positions within a particular project or community. In
such cases, their claims of marginalization within that specific context
may not be accurate or relevant.

In essence, marginalization is a temporary state, not a fixed identity.
It's fluid and can shift with changing situations and contexts,
highlighting the importance of diverse perspectives and the danger of
assuming any *one* group always holds a privileged viewpoint or unique
insight in all settings.

The misuse of marginalization claims has serious consequences.
Individuals wield this notion of perpetual marginalization not only to
speak for others, but also to justify a degradation of professional
standards. This false moral authority has become a shield for behavior
that would otherwise be unacceptable, leading us to examine the pitfalls
of such unchecked conduct.

## The Pitfall of Unchecked Behavior and False Marginalization

Traditionally, public displays of childish behavior were not tolerated
in professional settings. Recently, however, a troubling trend has
emerged: the justification of bullying behavior based on claimed
marginalized status. This justification often escalates rapidly,
creating untenable situations.

Crucially, these individuals are exploiting an identity that lacks a
concrete, technical definition. They are not inherently or permanently
marginalized; rather, they're hiding behind a facade to maintain special
privileges, particularly the ability to "shout down" others without
consequence.

This false claim of static marginalization ignores the contextual and
temporal nature of marginalization we discussed earlier. It allows
certain individuals or groups to maintain a position of perceived moral
authority, even when they've become part of, or aligned with the
majority. This misuse of claimed status creates an environment where
bullying is not only tolerated but sometimes even encouraged, as long as
it comes from the "right" sources.

Such behavior undermines the principles of professionalism, open
dialogue, and merit-based contribution that should be the hallmarks of
any healthy community, especially in technical fields. It's essential
to recognize and address this manipulation to maintain a truly fair and
productive environment.

## A Call for Maturity and Productive Incentives

As an adult and parent, such behavior is more disappointing than
surprising. Society might benefit from being more forgiving of mistakes,
allowing for course correction. In political terms, both sides often
have valid points and could learn from each other if they moved past
superficial differences. We should encourage more mature, productive
motivations, especially in contexts where many are willing to
collaborate constructively.

Importantly, we must consider the role of incentives in shaping
behavior. Creatures, including humans, are primarily motivated by
incentive structures. It's crucial not to inadvertently reward or
empower those who engage in divisive, derogatory, or unproductive
behavior, as this can quickly lead to a self-reinforcing cycle of
negative actions.

Thankfully, the solution is straightforward: we simply need to
incentivize civilized behavior. Instead of discouraging constructive
engagement by labeling it as "sea lioning" or "concern trolling," we can
cultivate an environment that rewards respectful disagreement and
collaborative problem-solving irrespective of personal or political
differences.

The alternative and apparent *status quo* seems to be a perpetual
witch-hunt for an ever-growing list of "wrong" opinions. Surely it is
clear which strategy is more sustainable?

## The Dangers of History Modification

The core issue lies in social manipulation through selective moderation
and, crucially, the modification of historical records. When moderation
teams, often claiming to represent marginalized groups, are empowered to
alter, delist, or delete past conversations, posts, or decisions, they
gain the ability to distort the narrative. This practice is, by
definition, a form of rewriting history.

By condoning or failing to address poor behavior from those claiming
marginalized status, these moderators further enable and entrench the
misuse of such claims. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle of
manipulation and degraded standards, undermining the integrity of
discourse and eroding trust among members.

A relevant example in the Nix project involves Jon Ringer, a
long-standing contributor and public figure. Recent controversies have
portrayed Jon as an instigator and "mean offensive person." However, a
more balanced view reveals him as a scapegoat for broader project
tensions. Crucially, Jon was permanently banned from the project, while
many who openly degraded him and made *ad hominem* attacks on his
character faced no consequences. This stark contrast highlights the
uneven application of moderation standards.

While Jon, like anyone, may have had imperfect moments under extreme
pressure, these pale in comparison to the systematic narrative
manipulation by others. The situation exposes a coordinated effort to
distort facts, issue threats, and employ bullying tactics to control the
project's direction.

The issue isn't that Jon was never wrong, but that he was consistently
painted as the primary instigator, regardless of reality. Even when
heated, Jon generally avoided the name-calling and derogatory behavior
that often went unchecked from other parties. His permanent ban, in this
context, underscores the troubling double standard at play in the
project's governance.

This manipulation of context and conversation history not only
misrepresents the overall dynamics but also serves to gaslight both
individuals and the wider perspective. The impact of this distortion is
evident in public platforms like Reddit, where observers unfamiliar with
Jon often express views that align with the manipulated narrative. These
casual observers, swayed by the dominant portrayal and the absence of
meaningful dissenting arguments, tend to perceive Jon as a far greater
problem than he actually was.

Crucially, while Jon may have contributed to some tension, he is far from
the epicenter of the controversy. In fact, the current issues surrounding
him have been brewing for years, consistently instigated by the same
individuals who have largely escaped scrutiny as they continue to
perpetuate divisive narratives.

The most tangible and regrettable outcome of this scapegoating is that
the Nix project has lost a long-standing, highly productive, and
professional contributor. Jon was often very helpful to newcomers, and
his departure represents a significant loss to the project. This
illustrates the real cost of allowing manipulated narratives to drive out
valuable members.

Such power to modify history is dangerous. It allows for the erasure of
context, the silencing of dissenting voices, and the creation of a false
consensus. This not only undermines transparency but also erodes trust
within project spaces and misleads those on the periphery. Setting a
clear precedent against this practice is vital. We must recognize that
allowing any group to "clean up" or selectively edit the historical
record is tantamount to endorsing propaganda[^1]. True professionalism in
project management involves facing our history honestly, learning
from it, and moving forward transparently.

Solving these problems requires strong leadership with a commitment to
preserving the integrity of shared discourse. Leaders must establish
clear principles that prioritize transparency and resist the temptation
to sanitize the past. While challenging, this approach is essential for
maintaining fairness, fostering genuine progress, and building a
trustworthy environment.

## The Solution: Embracing Leadership Principles

The real solution to Nix's or any project suffering from such childish
incursion lies in embracing fundamental principles of leadership. Being
a genuinely good leader is challenging. It requires holding oneself to a
higher standard than everyone else, and having the courage and conviction
to guide others to be their best selves, even when they resist.

Good leadership is the only way to be fair to all sides when there is a
genuine disagreement. It involves:

1. Setting clear, unambiguous goals and standards of behavior that align
   with the project's core values. This clarity respects everyone's time,
   allowing individuals to easily decide whether they align with and wish
   to participate in the project.
2. Maintaining transparency and resisting the urge to manipulate
   historical records.
3. Fostering respectful, merit-based dialogue while considering the
   silent majority, not just vocal special interests.
4. Making decisions based on technical merit and the project's best
   interests, not personal or ideological biases.
5. Being willing to address conflicts directly and fairly, without
   scapegoating individuals or giving special privileges to allies.
6. Consistently enforcing these standards, making it clear what kind of
   behavior and contributions are valued in the project.

By embracing these leadership principles, any project can create an
environment where technical excellence and collaborative spirit thrive.
It's a path that requires courage and commitment but offers the best hope
for resolving current tensions and preventing future ones.

However, implementing these principles requires a conscious choice from
all contributors, especially from those who have remained silent until
now.

## The Great Purge or Professionalism?

The Nix project faces a critical juncture. A long-standing moderator has
publicly expressed a desire for a ["purge"][purge] of supposed
"undesirables." This stark reality forces us to confront a fundamental
choice: do we embrace professionalism and mutual respect, or do we
allow divisive, exclusionary behavior to dominate and ultimately derail
the entire project?

This isn't just about Nix; it's a choice many now face. The silent
majority, those who typically avoid controversy, may now have to decide
what kind of project space they want to cultivate, and what sort of
leaders they wish to follow. Inaction is itself a choice; one that may
lead to the continued erosion of the project's ethic.

We must ask ourselves: Do we want a forum driven by technical merit and
collaborative spirit, or one ruled by ideological purity? The answer to
this question will shape the future of Nix and could set a precedent for
open-source projects at large.

It's time for those who value professionalism, open collaboration, and
technical excellence to stand up and be counted. The alternative - an
ecosystem stifled by ideological cleansing - is too high a price to pay
for our silence.

## Preserving the Future of Open Source

While this piece has focused on Nix, the issues discussed are
symptomatic of a growing and worrying trend across the open-source
world. Many projects face similar challenges with ideological divisions,
manipulated narratives, and the silencing of dissenting voices.

Open source is far too important to be ruled by narrow-minded and
exclusionary ideologies. By embracing strong leadership principles and
fostering environments of mutual respect and professionalism, we can
ensure that open source continues to thrive as a bastion of innovation
and collaboration.

[175]: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/175
[purge]: https://chaos.social/@hexa/112711384631096150

[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_negationism
