[RFC 111] Ensure Officially Hosted Communications are Public

rfcs/0111-public-only-comms.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+feature: public communication
+start-date: 2021/10/27
+author: nrdxp
+shepherd-team: TBD
+shepherd-leader: TBD
+---
+
+# Summary
+[summary]: #summary
+
+The NixOS community, up to this point, has _de facto_ operated in an open and
+transparent fasion. Whether it be in discussions on Matrix, Discourse, GitHub,
+in person at NixCon, or financial decision making via Open Collective,
+the community has demonstrated by its actions that it values openness and
+auditability in communication and decision making. We should therefore codify
+this ideal as a guaranteed community standard.
+
+# Motivation
+[motivation]: #motivation
+
+It has recently come to the author's attention that a private, invite only,
+chatroom has been created on the official NixOS Matrix Space. This seems to be
+a hard break from the above mentioned ideal of openness and transparency and
+has, therefore, triggered this RFC. There is no argument against the existence
+of any such room in principle, only that it not be officially sanctioned by the
+project unless said channel be willing to act in an open and auditable fashion.
+
+# Detailed design
+[design]: #detailed-design
+
+In an effort to promote transparency, we make it official policy that anything
+hosted under `nixos.org` be made and kept public. Should this RFC be accepted,
+the transition should be organized and enacted within a reasonable time frame,
+no later than two months from the date of acceptance.
+
+# Drawbacks
+[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
+
+Given that opening a private channel on another host is trivial, I can't
+imagine any major drawbacks.
+
+# Alternatives
+[alternatives]: #alternatives
+
+* Allow private channels under certain well defined circumstances
+* Allow private channels with no restrictions
+* Keep the current ambiguous state of affairs
+
+# Unresolved questions
+[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
+
+* Do we endorse privacy on our hosted channels at higher levels than transparency?
+* What are the implications for the community if private channels _are_ allowed?
+
+# Future work
+[future]: #future-work
+
+Ensure any newly created communication channels are made public from their
+inception.