Skip to content

Add sponsorship policy. [WIP] #128

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
djacu wants to merge 7 commits into from
Closed

Add sponsorship policy. [WIP] #128

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
cf73195
Add sponsorship policy.
djacu Mar 27, 2024
e9c70b2
Update Sponsorship.md
djacu Mar 30, 2024
3d623c6
Update Sponsorship.md
djacu Apr 3, 2024
f0afe8a
updates from 2024-04-07 policy discussion.
djacu Apr 8, 2024
b3f5048
more incremental updates.
djacu Apr 8, 2024
2960e29
more precise wording
djacu Apr 8, 2024
f01b1a8
defining majority vote.
djacu Apr 8, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
33 changes: 33 additions & 0 deletions Sponsorship.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
# Sponsorship

1. Purpose:
This policy is established to facilitate clear, prompt, and equitable determinations of proposed sponsorships, minimizing the need for protracted deliberation or ambiguity.

2. Scope:
This policy applies to all sponsorships at official NixCon events.
Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
This policy applies to all sponsorships at official NixCon events.
This policy applies to all sponsorships at official events endorsed by the NixOS foundation.

This encompasses event sponsors as well as companies delivering talks, hosting booths, etc.
Additionally, this policy extends to sponsorship messages within Nixpkgs itself or other official resources such as documentation and the homepage.

3. Rules for Sponsors:
The following rules may be subject to expansion or modification in the future to accurately reflect the prevailing decision-making process.

1. Sponsors must consist of individuals or entities legally capable of operating in accordance with the laws and policies of their jurisdiction, the NixOS Foundation, and pertinent third-party agreements.
2. Sponsorship links, materials, and content must be suitable for minors and work environments and should align with the Foundation's mission.
3. Event organizers retain the authority to establish additional regulations for event sponsorships, such as enforcing a thematic focus or stipulating specific local affiliations.

4. Composition of the Selection Committee:
- 2 representatives from the event organizers
Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- 2 representatives from the event organizers
- 2 representatives from the event organizers, including 1 member of the NixCon PL team if the PL team is engaging on the event

Copy link
Member

@zimbatm zimbatm Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One issue raised is that the PL team isn't officially defined yet (even if it exists and is doing a great job).

To solve this and move forward, I proposed creating a second document that establishes the PL team. As part of it, the PL team gets one of the event organizers' votes on all the events they are responsible for.

Copy link
Member

@RaitoBezarius RaitoBezarius Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What do you think of this informal post and definition (I must assume) https://discourse.nixos.org/t/governance-through-project-leads-in-nixcon-2024/33981 ? What should be improved to make it more defined ?

Copy link
Member

@zimbatm zimbatm Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like it overall. It does a good job of defining the scope, the roles and responsibilities, the team composition, and how to contact you.

One unclear point was the distinction between Bootstrap PL and PL, as well as the mechanisms around it. Are the PLs the event organizers for a specific year? This must be better defined before it can be referenced in this document.

Another aspect could be to officially assign the NixCon brand and assets to the PL. In that scenario, the foundation wouldn't even have to be involved creating this very policy, as the PL would be empowered to write it themselves.

Then give the team a homepage, move this to a founding document, done.

Copy link
Member

@RaitoBezarius RaitoBezarius Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Here we go. #134

Copy link
Member

@zimbatm zimbatm Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, we can work on this separately then, and resolve this thread.

Don't forget to add this notion in the other document: that the PL team would take one vote of the events team.

Copy link
Member

@mweinelt mweinelt Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Including this here would IMO be the sensible thing to do, given that this was the compromise that led to the agreement on the call.

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 9, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

No mention of the PL team in the sponsorship policy is a deal-breaker for me.

- 1 representative from the Foundation Board
- 1 representative from the Moderation team
- 1 representative from the Marketing team

5. Procedures:

1. Event organizers shall submit sponsorship proposals to the Selection Committee via email.

2. Selection Committee members shall receive notification at least 2 weeks prior to the event, with a minimum of 1 week provided for the submission of written objections to committee members.

3. Objections must be specific to the sponsor and cite pertinent reasons why the sponsorship would impede the NixOS mission.

4. In the event of an impasse during deliberation, objections shall be put to a vote.
A sponsor will be accepted if a significant majority, defined as greater than 70% of the committee votes, is in favor of acceptance.
Copy link
Member

@RaitoBezarius RaitoBezarius Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In our case, we can directly say this is 80 %, it's more precise and gives you a nice integer.
If we use > 70 %, people have to understand that 4 > 3.5 and 3 < 4.5.

Copy link
Member Author

@djacu djacu Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

people have to understand that 4 > 3.5 and 3 < 4.5.

I believe in the mental capabilities of the Nix community. 🧠

Also, we don't have to deliberate what the threshold is if the composition of the selection committee changes in the future. >70% will always be >70%.

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I want the language to be about committee members and not expressed votes. I'm fine if we say something like "A sponsor will be accepted if and only if 70% or more of committee members are in favor."

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't see why we don't keep the clear "4/5 members should be in favor". When we revisit the committee composition, we have to revisit this document anyway.

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
A sponsor will be accepted if a significant majority, defined as greater than 70% of the committee votes, is in favor of acceptance.
A sponsor will be accepted if and only if at least 4 members of the committee are in favor.

Copy link
Member Author

@djacu djacu Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JulienMalka I'm not sure what is missing. What you have suggested is pretty close to the current language is it not? Or are you just stating what you would like to see and not making a suggestion?

Ah sorry your second and third comment hadn't loaded yet when I commented. All clear now

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@JulienMalka I'm not sure what is missing. What you have suggested is pretty close to the current language is it not? Or are you just stating what you would like to see and not making a suggestion?

  1. The if and only if makes it clear that the only way for a sponsor to get approved is through the committee agreement. It's important.
  2. I want the language to be clear that we need a majority of members and not voters (abstention counts as a no). It's also important.
  3. I think that 4/5 is more clear than 70% but I can compromise on that.

Copy link
Member Author

@djacu djacu Apr 8, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To preserve the understanding of what a "significant/strong/super" majority is in the future, how about the following?

edit: added iff
edit: members not votes

Suggested change
A sponsor will be accepted if a significant majority, defined as greater than 70% of the committee votes, is in favor of acceptance.
A sponsor will be accepted if and only if a significant majority, defined as greater than 70% of the committee members, is in favor of acceptance.
With the current composition of the selection committee, acceptance necessitates at least 4 members in favor.

Copy link
Member

@JulienMalka JulienMalka Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we change 70% of the committee votes to 70% of the committee members ? And for the rest no strong opinion on adding or not the last sentence.

Copy link
Member Author

@djacu djacu Apr 8, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we change 70% of the committee votes to 70% of the committee members ? And for the rest no strong opinion on adding or not the last sentence.

Ah I understand what you were trying to convey now. Members not votes. Yeah that's better.