servius/sukr
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix: add reference link to banning

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Timothy DeHerrera
2025-01-20 20:20:31 -07:00
parent 379d2d0f60
commit 2f7b3dc8e8
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
content/blog/closed-openness.md
View File

@@ -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.