Do you think there's any danger in handing over absolute power to whomever just claims to have a superior morality? Has that happened before in history and what has the consequences been?

Didn't Andruil get sent of after a while anyway?

Why don't the do-gooders just fork Nix and do EthicalNix or whatever, and lead by example instead of trying to take over the existing structure, wouldn't that be more in line with open source ethics, and you know common courtesy? Maybe drop github and Microsoft due to ethical principles while they're at it?

> Do you think there's any danger in handing over absolute power to whomever just claims to have a superior morality?

At any point in time there are always multiple entities claiming to have a superior morality. There is also always an entity with absolute power. So both points are moot and this question is moot as well.

> Didn't Andruil get sent of after a while anyway?

I would assume people like a project that is lead in a way that the community doesn't have to make ad-hoc interventions to undo decisions they think are bad.

And this is where the power dynamics come into play. There is leadership that assumes it has the power to take certain sponsorship. So the community does not want that entity to have absolute power, it actually wants that entity not to have power. So now there is a power struggle for absolute power. The community would like to get absolute power so it can just make decisions about military sponsorships beforehand. The current power holders want to keep absolute power and take whatever sponsorships they want.

I don't think open source ethics prescribe you have to fork a project instead of taking it over. Common courtesy from the current power holders would be step down, or common courtesy doesn't actually mean anything "you know".

It's up to whomever will be in power to decide where the line of ethics is drawn. I certainly hope they would consult a broader audience to see if they line up with the community. If you think github and Microsoft should be dropped as well I would implore to make that case.

It's interesting that you think there are other unethical organizations involved with Nix while at the same time arguing that the current leadership should remain. If I think something is unethical I argue against it instead of for it. In case I find myself on the unethical side of an issue I try to see if there is a higher ethical standard that I hold that trumps that one instead of arguing that the unethical thing is good.

> The community would like to get absolute power so it can just make decisions about military sponsorships beforehand.

There is no such thing as "community" when talking about power. Certain people will have power. Maybe wider community agrees with them. If there is an established way to transfer this power (and install a different governance structure), then they can use it. If there is no such way, they may ask edolstra to step down, but surely he is not obliged to do so.

Historically, forking was a way for open source communities to diverge when they had incompatible values. There are plenty of examples of successful forks, preferred by community.

A teeny little bit of me thinks, that people who are not happy with current leadership do not want to fork the project because they are not sure that wider community cares enough to follow them.

I agree that there is not one community. The community is split in factions. One faction likes to talk about themselves as "the community", but in practise they only speak for themselves. Since there is no elected leader, it is all informal and anarchic.

The value neutral position is Eelco's: To let event organizers choose. It is them that tries to fund the conference, let them make the call.