Meeting notes and vote log for 2026-03-25

[philiptaron]

I've included the vote we took on the grant proposal.

[niklaskorz]

I do hope we'll be able to witness a public dramatic reading at Nixcon 2026 😄

[cafkafk]

As mentioned in the internal notes, I said and after wrote some critical remarks about the meeting process that were removed, which I disagree with.

In summary, the meeting was moved without warning for the second time, preventing my attendance, and the recorder redacted the record by introducing made up rules that meant they couldn't go into the notes.

These were remarks that were critical of members of the SC, including the recorder. The rest of the SC didn't take an actual stance on the editing on the meeting notes, focusing only on the actual scheduling issue.

So I think there is a real problem with these notes until we've actually established norms that don't let the SC hide from criticism, despite whether the recorder finds their delivery acceptable.

[philiptaron]

Christina, it's pretty appalling that you'd merge the internal notes and then berate me here for keeping them verbatim.

You make three claims here that are false. I'm saddened you're choosing to continue to repeat them.

I said and after wrote some critical remarks about the meeting process that were removed

I copied the notes from our markdown as the meeting adjourned. I edited nothing. "That were removed" is a canard. You proposed changes on the draft of the notes, which I rejected on factual grounds. You claimed to have joined at a timestamp you did not, and you claimed a conspiracy to move the meeting which had no grounds in reality. Of course I rejected these assertion. You shouldn't have made them, and your continuing to do so speaks worse and worse of you.

redacted the record by introducing made up rules

No. The meeting notes reflect what actually happened. We (the other six members) had adjourned the meeting when you joined. By inserting a timestamp before that happened, you are the one attempting to falsify the notes.

These were remarks that were critical of members of the SC, including the recorder. The rest of the SC didn't take an actual stance on the editing on the meeting notes, focusing only on the actual scheduling issue.

It's a red line for me to merge factually untrue things. Your argument from the silence of the other folks on the SC that they might support you in this -- well, you're inviting comment here.

Obviously the scheduling issue needs resolving. In point of fact I myself was unsure when the meeting was. So I carved two hours out of my day to be sure that I could attend. Note that these are core working hours in my timezone.

---

So what actually happened? Here's the record, following my promise to disagree in public. I'm going to use my timezone (PDT) as I don't see an easy way of making Zulip show UTC, though it stores everything as such.

1. Julien posted in the Zulip at 7:30AM the link to the time of the meeting, the notes pad, and the link.
2. The time of the meeting was shown to everyone in their timezone. For me, it showed at 10AM.
3. I showed up at 10AM at the link. @edef1c, the observer we've agreed to invite, was already there. I expected Julien to lead the meeting, as that's what was previously discussed.
4. Julien was unable to lead the meeting -- which in this case means going through the agenda and maintaining order -- due to being in the grocery store. Despite not being prepared to do so, I stepped up, offered to lead it, and did so.
5. We talked about what's in the notes above.
6. At 10:59AM (my time) we adjourned. I copied and pasted the notes from our in-meeting shared draft into my local editor for posting.
7. Sometime in the next few minutes you joined. At this point I had already left or was just about to -- I don't recall us talking at all over video.
8. According to the commit timestamps on the notes (ref: 6977999bcb581a8c279c99853a4e3aeaef086e39), I post the notes at 11:07AM.

---

So I think there is a real problem with these notes until we've actually established norms that don't let the SC hide from criticism, despite whether the recorder finds their delivery acceptable.

I definitely agree with this! I ran on transparency, reducing absenteeism, and disagreeing in public. While this issue of calendaring and meeting note adjustment is quite small in the grand scope of things, it's a place where all three of these planks are at issue. So while this criticism is coming from inside the SC rather than outside, I agree that not hiding from it is the right call.

I commit to fighting for accuracy, even when it's a small matter. I'd love to continue to partner with you on making the SC transparent.

[cafkafk]

I really don't have time to read all that you posted, but this one claim does deserve a response

Christina, it's pretty appalling that you'd merge the internal notes and then berate me here for keeping them verbatim.

If you look at the actual amount of attempts I made at making you change it, without any sort of compromise from you so we could get it in, it makes perfect sense that I decided to just move on and note for the public record in this review that you had redacted something I felt was important to add.

I also explicitly said I'd prefer to solve this internally. I will however NOT BE SILENT when I see organizational dysfunction that is explicitly against the platform of transparency I ran on and was elected for.

But I'm really not gonna get into a prolonged debate, the entire point here is to just mark that I strongly disagree with your actions, I won't convince you over text.

I believe that the community is smart enough to make their own opinion about who is at fault and what the recourse should be, I don't to construct a narrative here, I think the facts speak for themselves. I will add a FAQ at the end of this reply just for my own context. As always, I am available for questions from community members.

Actual Receipts

Short FAQ

cafkafk you shouldn't berate others!

The actual notes were verbatim:

- @cafkafk joined at 18:55, late and said this
  - We should have meeting agenda in advance of the day of the meeting, with an actual timestamp

This is not berating anyone here. That note is neutral.

That said, my tone in the meeting might have been frustrated, for which I apologize. But that did not carry through to the note I wrote.

You cafkafk are gaslighting Phillip, as he said in the original PR?

Well:

• He is telling me I joined after the timestamp when I didn't, that or my clock is wrong, I explicitly looked at a date invocation and wrote that. That said, this is a minor point, and I could be wrong!
• Says pointing this out is blaming others when the entry is neutral and blameless. That said, he may be referring to my tone in the meeting, albeit I didn't name anyone at fault I think. I don't think that's a reason to block the note however, and honestly, if anything, if I had blamed people directly in the meeting, I see no reason to redact that, I'd want that to trickle down to the community so they could see how I am behind closed doors.
• I've repeatedly sought an INTERNAL compromise and attempted to deescalate. I've continually tried to extend an olive branch. I even kept my comment as neutral as I could manage on this PR, even though it likely does read as quite pointed. But that is because it is pointed at Phillip.
• He invented new rules that meeting notes could be added after "we adjourned", which simply has never been the case, and I've myself added notes after multiple times, we all have. Even if such a rule made sense in any way and wasn't just introduced so he could decide what does and doesn't go in the notes, I think the good faith approach here would have been to at least say that since that hadn't been established in advance, it couldn't be enforced until we'd actually agreed on such a norm.

Why did you, cafkafk, post it in public?

After repeated attempts at deescalating or solving it internally, I was unable to make any progress. Thus The next lowest rung on the escalation ladder was to make the community aware of this, and judge for themselves. Given we're both elected, my strongest way to resolve this long term is to lean on the transparency I'm arguing for.

Is the SC a total mess?

NO! This is very abnormal, normally we are easily able to find consensus and work together, and Phillip has actually been one of the more effective and collaborative members. This is very abnormal for our usual functioning, and I hope that it's a one time thing.

That said, it does have consequences. As I mentioned in the internal thread, if I can't trust the meeting notes, I'll have to write my own, which is frustrating and creates dual work. Alternatively, I've considered proposing rules around meeting norms or similar to make sure we don't have a situation like this again, but it is hard, because I genuinely believe that given what it has taken so far to point out a minor procedural issue... it's not a debate that would be had in good faith, but colored by peoples need to never take an L.

Phillip hit ctrl-c ctrl-v thou?

Apparently. Perhaps he did so while I was still writing, or before? I can't say that he purposefully removed the entry, but it was absolutely there, and written while I was in the meeting. If there was a desync or similar, that is unfortunate of course, but to be clear, I wrote that note in the meeting notes while in the meeting, while saying I was writing it, at that timestamp, and it wasn't present in the notes he posted.

They could have just been added. They weren't. Adding them was contested so heavily we're now throwing mud in public PRs. So yeah. :/

EDIT: To make the record complete, I also wrote this after the fact in the internal zulip thread.

[rhendric]

https://nixos-mediation.org, I beg you. Don't wait for things to get worse than this.