rfcs VS matrix.to

> (after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!)

Clicking that link takes us to a PR that was opened on 2024-02-02. The initial response from the Nix author comes 7 minutes later. Puck has multiple back and forths with other members Github, but her next interaction with the Nix author comes the next day on 2024-02-03. This is also the first time in the conversation where she "reminds him ... to even read her PR message". There's a second interaction later that same day during which she does similar, but it's worth noting this is pointing to a different message and appears to be less a "reminder to read" and more re-iterating what they feel is their argument against the Nix author's own arguments. Puck then continues to have back and forth with other commenters but as of today, there has been no further comments from the Nix author after 2024-02-03, and no further comments from Puck after 2024-02-08.

This hardly to my mind qualifies either as "having to remind him multiple times to even read her PR message at all" or "after eelco ignored the PR for quite a while, also!" So as I said it's a fairly weak claim, and feels more like a "bastard eating crackers" reaction to the PR than an actual showing of poor behavior.

As for the "Meson example", I didn't ignore it. As I stated in my comment, I had at that point read two of the referenced discussions in detail, and thus commented on them. I didn't comment in the "Meson example" for the simple reason that I hadn't read it.

I have read it now, and equally find it confusing.

1) The claim in the letter is that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years", yet the RFC itself only appears to have been opened 2022-08-24. It's been a while since grade school for me, and I'll admit COVID has warped all our sense of time, but I'm pretty sure 2022 is not 5 years ago.

2) The first completed working implementation of the change doesn't appear to have been done until 2023-01-18 (https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-13874661...). Again this is much less than 5 years old.

3) On 2023-03-20, the author of the PR for this change states:

> the RFC has made it past most of the early stages and the current goal is to achieve parity with the current buildsystem before replacing it.

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-14768433...)

Again, this doesn't seem to fit at all with the claim that the proposal has "passed RFC, for five years"

4) On 2023-11-01, the Nix author themselves asks for updates on the RFC implementation, an action which doesn't seem congruent with someone who is willy nilly single handedly blocking things and being a disruption to the process. And the author of the PR states:

>the main block is actually a lack of free time for the main devs!

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-17890770...)

This doesn't seem to point to evidence that the Nix author is single handedly holding up this process.

5) On 2024-03-21 the PR author notes:

> currently working on adding support to build nix-perl, waiting for assistance

(https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/132#issuecomment-20135356...)

Not to sound like a broken record, but if the issue isn't finished as of a few weeks ago, it can hardly be considered to be held up by the Nix author for 5 years.

I agree that one of the links in the open letter is to a comment on a PR from 2019, which is indeed 5 year ago, and does indeed contain the Nix author commenting that they are skeptical of the change because "he doesn't know meson but knows his own build system". But given that there's an entire wealth of history on the topic since then, including progress on the feature that appears completely unobstructed by the Nix author and an open PR that is a mere 3 weeks old for a current implementation, I find myself again unconvinced of this rampant bad behavior on the part of the Nix author. And I reiterate again that these complaints are very weak and don't do much to support the open letter at best, and act as contrary evidence at worst.

Again there might be other context to be had that is missing, but if one is going to write a massive "open letter" complaining about bad behavior, I expect the links in that letter to point to actual bad behavior, and or provide the relevant context necessary to show how what appears to be normal dissent is a passive aggressive continuation of obstruction. I have to assume the links one provides in an open letter is their strongest evidence, and if this is all the authors have... I am unconvinced.

Nix with dynamic derivations (RFC92) could potentially beat this curse.

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0092-plan-dyn...

See: A plan to stabilize the new CLI and Flakes incrementally https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

NixOS recently introduced "problem" infrastructure to deal with such problems more gracefully and explicitly:

https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/blob/master/rfcs/0127-issues-w...

For some more context: Flawed as they are, Flakes solve a large number of problems Nix experiences without them. This is why I, and presumably many others, use them even in their current experimental state.

An RFC was recently accepted to commit to forming a plan towards stabilization of Flakes: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/136

Personally, I don't believe there won't be any breaking changes, but I also believe that the stabilization of Flakes is still a ways away and hope that there will be a reasonable migration path.

NixOS needs to merge https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/133 to solve the issue

Happy to see this on HN =). Lunatik’s main author here. AMA.

Please feel welcome to join us on Matrix [1] as well.

[1] https://matrix.to/#/#lunatik:matrix.org

There is this list of 15-minute bugs that should be easy to tackle https://bugs.kde.org/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=critical&bug_s...

Also strarting on smaller KDE applications is usually a great way to start, For example the Plasma widgets/applets or KDE games or educational applications.

You can join the New Contributors char room on Matrix to get help with starting out https://matrix.to/#/#new-contributors:kde.org

There's also https://matrix.to/#/#review-requests:nixos.org

Hi, I'm the Thib person mention in this article, and I agree that QA is super important. I can mostly talk about matrix.org, since I have little power over the Element clients. Disclaimer though: I'm technically employed by Element (to make paperwork simpler since I'm France-based, Element has an entity in France, and the Foundation is UK-based), but I'm working for the Foundation full time.

This kind of article is super valuable since it gives us the perspective of a new user. I opened https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix.org/issues/2178 to translate the gripes mentioned in the issue into actionable items for us. I took action on the most urgent one (updating the Try Matrix page), but want to take the time to go beyond the surface symptoms and address the root cause of the other gripes.

On the Foundation side, we're a small but mighty team of four. The website is currently maintained part time by me and a volunteer who is doing an excellent job at it.

As I wrote recently in a blog post "Tracking what works, not people" (https://ergaster.org/posts/2024/01/24-tracking-what-works/), I would love to have the resources to conduct user research and user testing on the website but I unfortunately don't. We deployed privacy-preserving analytics to see where people drop and what confuses them. It's not nearly as good as proper QA and user testing, but that's what we can afford for now.

Overall I'm grateful to the author for documenting their frustration, and even more grateful for reacting constructively to our responses and integrating them in the blog post! One of the strengths of open source is to find and address issues collectively. I consider this blog post to be a good open source contribution.

If people around believe in our mission and want to help us with their brainpower, I invite them to join our "Office of the Matrix.org Foundation" room: https://matrix.to/#/%23foundation-office:matrix.org

For those aligned with our mission and who want to support us financially, the https://matrix.org/support/ page should give you all the information you need to help us out.

https://matrix.to/#/#openbao-general:chat.lfx.linuxfoundatio...

Hi all,

This project release is a long time coming. It was a big uphill battle, and by far my largest endeavor so far. I built it for Sandstorm because I believe in Sandstorm's model, and I wanted to show that there's still life and potential in it. If you're inspired, joining our OpenCollective would be really helpful: https://opencollective.com/sandstormcommunity (keeping in mind that Sandstorm has now moved from its original leadership to a community project https://sandstorm.org/news/2023-11-03-from-io-to-org).

You can also join our mailing list or connect on the fediverse: https://sandstorm.org/community (The IRC link is outdated, we've effectively moved to Matrix for now due to the libera.chat split: https://matrix.to/#/#sandstorm:libera.chat)

Also: I'm open for hire! You can see some of my skills in putting things together in this blog post. I'd love to work in something FOSS or OSM related, but not a requirement. I mostly do Python and Golang, with a bit of Haskell under my belt. Other projects and resume here: https://github.com/orblivion/me

I really appreciate you sharing your concerns, and for all the hope and energy you've put into Matrix to date. Very much to your point, we're not yet in a state where I recommend Matrix to friends and family. Right now I only use it with people in FOSS and other circles where folks are a little more patient with the tech.

Only time will tell, and of course I'm biased as the Matrix.org Foundation's Managing Director, but I think there's good reason to remain hopeful:

The spec continues to evolve with major improvements expected in feature set and performance in the next year as we get to the 2.0 spec release, the Foundation is staffing up and beginning to fundraise, we're on the cusp of holding our first ever community elections to seat a Governing Board, and adoption has continued doubling on an annual basis.

I invite you and anyone else who is invested and/or concerned to join us in the Foundation's new office room – it's a way to get a view into ongoing activities, ask questions, provide direct feedback, and celebrate all the little wins on our way to collective success: https://matrix.to/#/#foundation-office:matrix.org

Cool! Just in case you haven't come across this, we've got a (rather quiet lately) chat that might be useful.

https://matrix.to/#/#usb-rs:matrix.org