Thoughts on Jon Ringer's temporary suspension

# Thoughts on Jon Ringer's temporary suspension

This post is a reply to "Transparency about jonringer’s suspension" https://discourse.nixos.org/t/why-was-jon-ringer-banned-from-github/44114/23

I'm a nixpkgs-committer but I'm posting from an alt account, because I'd like to avoid the sorts of personal attacks that I've seen directed to participants recently.

Firstly, thank you to the moderators for providing more information on this. Moderation is a difficult responsibility, and thank you for having the enthusiasm to do it.

> the community has been reinflamed due to Jon’s lack of sensitivity. We feel that, after enough such interactions, failing to recognize the impact of one’s behavior and not changing it constitutes reckless conduct for a community leader. The word ‘reckless’ is chosen with care; we are not accusing Jon of having malicious intent against the NixOS community. But based on the impact of his behavior, we believe a temporary suspension is justified and necessary.

I'm concerned that this sets a worrying example, whereby the way to resolve a difference of opinion in one's favor is to decry the other side. This makes me feel discouraged from participating in the NixOS community. Is there any way that Jon (or anyone else) could have advocated his opinion, in a way that wouldn't be judged to be reckless?

I'll jump into each of examples provided:

> Jon’s PR applying to become an observer on the Foundation board (the issue here is not that he dared to apply; it’s the complete absence of sensitivity—in the best case, assuming that this was not Jon’s intent—to what his application, at that time, after the way he’s been engaging with Foundation decisions, would do to the community—continued and exacerbated in more recent comments after his application was formally declined) https://github.com/NixOS/foundation/pull/133

It's not clear to me what should Jon have done, in light of him holding his views, and wishing to engage with NixOS governance in a more formal manner. Should he have withdrawn? Kept his opinions to his self, knowing that some in the community disagree with him? That doesn't seem like a sustainable approach to governance.

> This thread, concerning the (not ultimately implemented) suggestion that particular attention be paid to gender minority representation in the event sponsor selection process (the issue here is not the disagreement, but the pattern of engagement involving repeatedly resetting the conversation back to zero—asking if there are any specific suggestions, as if the entire thread isn’t his response to a specific suggestion; saying he’s not interested in debating, while debating; making value statements and responding to other people’s value statements with, ‘Stating […] something doesn’t make it true’, etc.) https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968

* "asking if there are any specific suggestions, as if the entire thread isn’t his response to a specific suggestion"
    * Reference: "What are the actionable items?" https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968/11
    * Jon was replying to someone saying the actionable items are clear. This suggests multiple items, not just the one that this thread was started from. It's reasonable for Jon to ask for clarification on what those clear actionable items are.
* "saying he’s not interested in debating, while debating"
    * Reference: "I’m not really interested in debating either. Let’s just fix the problem. What’s our solution?" https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968/11
    * Jon is replying to "I’m not interested into debating [...]", and trying to get to concrete suggestions. This seems reasonable.
* "making value statements and responding to other people’s value statements with, ‘Stating […] something doesn’t make it true’"
    * Reference: "Stating that something is or isn’t something doesn’t make it true." https://discourse.nixos.org/t/objection-to-minority-representation-by-a-single-class-in-nixos-sponsorship-policy/42968/11
    * Jon is replying to a comment "They are not open questions."
    * There's nothing wrong with value statements, but whether a question is open or not is a statement of fact, not a value statement. It's reasonable to note that positions need justification.
    * Jon could have been more polite in his disagreement here, as could many others in that thread or others.

> Jon responding with ‘everything is political’ in a way that both denies that his engagement has itself been deeply political as of late and shows an insensitivity to the issues previously raised https://discourse.nixos.org/t/major-nixpkgs-contributor-leaving/44053/11

Maybe this is political, maybe it's not? How is this weight towards justification for a temporary ban?

Through these examples, and further reading of the open letters, Discourse, and other spaces, I'm left confused.

I'm left confused on when it's acceptable to express opinions/positions that are relevant to the direction of the project, but that happen to conflict with opinions of a subset of contributors.

The NixOS moderation team has a difficult responsibility, but Jon has been unfairly treated here. I would be happy to see the temporary ban on Jon lifted, and for him to be able to continue contributing ASAP.