✅ Recommended: Pragmatic-Technocrats
Vote for candidates who prioritize technical excellence, democratic moderation, and mission-focused governance:
- crertel - Tech-first meritocracy, principled neutrality, objective moderation
- aanderse - Technical sustainability, minimal governance, clear CoC enforcement
- GaetanLepage - Infrastructure focus, improving contributor tooling and experience
- tomberek - Neutral technical commons, focus on code over politics
⚖️ Consider: Institutional-Neutralists
Process-focused candidates seeking to heal divisions through better governance structures:
- drupol - Building fair, transparent processes; restoring trust through neutrality
- mschwaig - Compromise and balance, procedural justice for all parties
- philiptaron - Clear processes, community-ratified policies on contentious issues
- adamcstephens - Bridging divides, improving communication channels
🔧 Wildcards: Independent Contributors
Single-issue candidates focused on specific technical improvements:
- Scrumplex - Ecosystem development and third-party tooling support
- jopejoe1 - CI/CD infrastructure improvements and reliability
- tomodachi94 - SC process efficiency and internal operations
- pinpox - Community growth, accessibility, and outreach
❌ Avoid: Reformist-Activists
Politically-driven candidates who prioritize social activism over technical merit:
- cafkafk - "Leading voice" in military sponsorship opposition, explicit anti-MIC platform. First runner-up in 2024. Open letter signer.
- nyabinary - "Aggressively inclusive" rhetoric, values-based governance over merit. Open letter signer.
- JulienMalka - Cultural shift agenda, constitutional reform for ideological purposes. Open letter signer.
- K900 - Running explicitly due to moderation team resignation. Wants SC to "defer to teams" and "stand by decisions even if we disagree". Open letter signer.
- niklaskorz - Community health prioritized over technical goals. Open letter signer.
- pluiedev - Reformist transparency agenda and anti-MIC stance. Open letter signer.
- getchoo - Community-first over tech-first approach. Open letter signer.
- leona-ya - Release Manager with DEI focus. Open letter signer.
- nim65s - Former moderator advocating expanded moderation power. Open letter signer.
- rhendric - Former moderator with community-first focus. Anti-MIC stance. Open letter signer.
- samueldr - Left community feeling "pushed out", running to "patch things up". Former release manager. Open letter signer.
These candidates explicitly align with each other as a voting bloc and seek to transform Nix
from a technical project into a political platform. They defend unaccountable moderation
and oppose democratic oversight.
Take Action
Research the candidates. Read their platforms. Look at their technical contributions.
Ask hard questions about their stance on democratic moderation. Then vote for those who will keep Nix focused on what matters:
building the best functional package manager and OS in the world.
View Full Candidate Info →
Why This Election Matters
The Nix ecosystem thrives on technical rigor, reproducibility, and pragmatic engineering.
The Steering Committee should reflect these values. Vote for candidates who prioritize
technical merit, community collaboration, and sustainable project governance
over divisive political activism.
The 2025 SC election comes after years of community turmoil involving moderation team controversies,
mass resignations of board members and moderators, and the permanent banning of prominent contributors
for ideological reasons. This election will determine whether Nix remains a technical project or becomes
a platform for political activism.
Background Context
The Community Crisis
Since 2021, the Nix community has experienced escalating conflicts over moderation, governance,
and the role of political activism in a technical project. This culminated in mass resignations
from the board and moderation team in 2024.
What's at Stake
The 2025 SC election will determine whether Nix returns to its roots as a technically-focused
community project, or continues down a path of ideological gatekeeping and political activism
that has alienated many contributors.
Your Vote Matters
This is your opportunity to shape the future direction of Nix. Choose candidates who will
prioritize technical excellence, democratic accountability, and inclusive collaboration over
political litmus tests and divisive activism.
🗳️ The Critical Moderation Question
One of the most important issues in this election is community moderation governance.
The current system lacks democratic accountability, creating potential for abuse and political gatekeeping.
The SC must commit to making moderation transparent and community-driven.
✓ Support Candidates Who:
- Advocate for democratically elected moderators
- Support transparent moderation policies with clear appeals processes
- Believe moderation should focus on technical mission, not political enforcement
- Want community oversight and accountability for moderation decisions
- Oppose using CoCs as tools for ideological conformity
- Commit to keeping Nix mission-focused on technical excellence
✗ Avoid Candidates Who:
- Defend the current unaccountable moderation system
- Want to expand political/social moderation beyond tech discussions
- Support opaque moderation processes without community input
- View disagreement with their politics as "harmful" or "unsafe"
- Prioritize activism over technical contributions
- Have a history of divisive culture war rhetoric
A healthy technical community requires moderation that serves the mission, not political agendas.
Democratic accountability ensures moderators work for the community, not against it.
What We Stand For
Vote for candidates prioritizing technical excellence, meritocracy, community cohesion, transparency, and pragmatism.
Technical Excellence First
Candidates should demonstrate deep technical understanding of Nix, NixOS, and the ecosystem.
The SC's primary role is steering technical direction, not social engineering.
Meritocracy & Inclusivity
True inclusivity means welcoming contributors based on their code, ideas, and collaboration—not
their political beliefs or identity markers. Great software comes from great engineers.
Community Cohesion
The Nix community should remain united around our shared love of functional package management
and declarative systems. Avoid candidates who inject unnecessary culture war conflicts.
Transparency & Accountability
Demand clear governance processes, open decision-making, and responsiveness to community concerns.
No backroom deals or ideological gatekeeping.
Pragmatism Over Purity
Support candidates who make practical decisions that benefit users and developers,
not those pushing abstract political frameworks that alienate significant portions of the community.
🚩 Red Flags to Watch For
Avoid candidates with these warning signs of political activism over technical merit:
- Political litmus tests - Requiring ideological conformity for participation
- Code of Conduct weaponization - Using CoCs to silence dissent rather than prevent harassment
- Defending unaccountable moderation - Opposing democratic oversight or transparency reforms
- Vague "inclusivity" promises - Without concrete technical plans or community consensus
- Divisive rhetoric - Language that frames the community in terms of oppressor/oppressed dynamics
- Minimal technical contributions - Candidates without substantial code contributions or technical leadership
- External political activism - Prioritizing outside political movements over Nix project health
- Signing partisan open letters - Participating in organized activist campaigns rather than focusing on technical governance