From 2f7b3dc8e8d46a02b1dc9662b2620154508b2602 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Timothy DeHerrera Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2025 20:20:31 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] fix: add reference link to banning --- content/blog/closed-openness.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/content/blog/closed-openness.md b/content/blog/closed-openness.md index c4c1e25..64aaef3 100644 --- a/content/blog/closed-openness.md +++ b/content/blog/closed-openness.md @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ Our approach to RFC 175 revealed this dynamic in action. We maintained professio What followed was even more revealing. After nearly two weeks of forced silence on our own RFC, we were finally "allowed" to speak, but by then the damage was largely done. Next came the open letter calling for Eelco's resignation - which, ironically, we watched being ghost-written in real-time thanks to a leaked shared document from someone apparently troubled by the backroom dealings. -The final act came months later. Despite moving on to discussions about what would eventually become Ekala and limiting my involvement in NixOS to answering newcomers' questions on Discourse, I was quietly banned for "regularly heated debates" after commenting on yet another weaponization of political rhetoric during the constitutional "election." They simultaneously banned my RFC co-author and another associate who hadn't even spoken out, using the same generic charge. The brazenness alone revealed how smug they'd become in their authority. This, after years of effectively challenging their rhetoric through nothing but logic and organic community support (I haven't even touched on RFC 111 from years back). +The final act came months later. Despite moving on to discussions about what would eventually become Ekala and limiting my involvement in NixOS to answering newcomers' questions on Discourse, I was quietly [banned](https://github.com/NixOS/moderation/blob/a1c292a453a93fc5d22dcc4738514d6d636d0d74/moderation-log.md?plain=1#L3-L7) for "regularly heated debates" after commenting on yet another weaponization of political rhetoric during the constitutional "election." They simultaneously banned my RFC co-author and another associate who hadn't even spoken out, using the same generic charge. The brazenness alone revealed how smug they'd become in their authority. This, after years of effectively challenging their rhetoric through nothing but logic and organic community support (I haven't even touched on RFC 111 from years back). I document these events not to settle scores, but to correct an increasingly doctored record. People often encounter fragments of these discussions - carefully edited by now - and accept the painted narrative of me as some radical agitator. The irony is profound: [in this context](../nixos-policy-breakdown/#marginalization-is-contextual-and-temporal), I represent exactly the marginalized voice they claim to defend. I had no coalition, no special interest group, no funding - just my voice, my friends who've been similarly ostracized, and the occasional supporter willing to stand with me.