nixpkgs has a due-process problem

The governance change that enabled the problem occurred when the delegation replaced unanimous agreement on committer-list changes with a rule allowing a single delegator to remove a committer. This shift concentrated power and removed the collective check that previously existed. The material notes that the change was made in May, shortly before the author’s access was revoked.

In the author’s case, the removal was based on two specific mistakes: merging personal pull requests quickly and merging an rbtools update that failed to build on all platforms. No prior warning was issued, the delegation did not contact the author first, and there was no documented appeal route. The public record shows that the decision could be made by one person without a defined standard for correction.

The lack of a clear process creates practical costs for contributors: uncertainty about when access might be lost, no opportunity to respond or correct mistakes, and a chilling effect on willingness to contribute. For a security-sensitive project, an indefinite removal differs from an emergency suspension and should require notice, a chance to respond, recusal, multi-person agreement, and an appeal.

Although the Nixpkgs core team later published guidelines promising discussion, warnings, consensus, and identification of participants in non-unanimous removals, these are aspirational. The formal rule still states that one member may remove a committer, with no binding threshold, recusal rule, response period, or appeal mechanism. Consequently, the due-process gap persists despite the guidelines.