It was my ambition to write some informal reports of the Steering Committee action more often, because I think it's important for people to get a better understanding of what is (or is not) happening inside the Steering Committee. I have failed to do so thus far, and I hope I'll be able to do better in the future. I certainly will try my best. The fact is that most of the time not much is happening, but I'll try reporting on that too. I'll also try to focus less on those reports being of high quality, and more on them existing.

More generally, my activity within the SC has been substantially reduced compared to end of 2025. The reasons are simply that I invested a lot of energy in the first months trying to get meaningful progress on the moderation front, trying to meet the high expectations that the community has (and rightfully so) in terms of transparency. While we have tried to allocate the tasks (meeting notes publication, votes log, etc) fairly in a way that everyone would participate, I have often found myself picking up a lot of chores alongside one or two fellow members (Philip particularly). Pushing through the general "inertia" that the SC typically has is also extremely energy taxing. As a result of both lower energy levels and lower "meaning" found in my work on the SC, I have reduced a bit my involvement to preserve myself.

In my last note, the Steering Committee was on the verge of approving my proposal to rebuild the moderation team. The proposal was indeed accepted shortly after that note, but the process to move forward after that milestone has since been very slow for multiple reasons:

• we have taken a long time identifying the members that will form the bootstrap team due to a lot of back and forth;

• since that team composition has been formally decided, progress has been blocked on writing the official announcement to kickstart the process.

Overall, to my great regrets, I feel that this work has lost momentum exactly at the moment I stopped sinking all my energy pushing it. My impression is that several other SC members consider that because they were not the ones that introduced the proposal in the first place, they are not responsible for its eventual success or failure, which I tend to disagree with. This is connected to a more global issue in which because we have been elected on different platforms and that the SC's structure does not force us to come up with a "compromise platform", there is very little incentive for individual SC members to work together on projects. In any case, I feel ready to push this topic again and see where it brings us.

While the topic is not officially a public matter, it has been sufficiently discussed in our public meeting notes (see 2026-03-18 and 2026-03-25 meeting notes) and online that I can write a little piece about it: a consortium of companies is working towards substantial funding of members of the CUDA team through the NixOS foundation. For the NixOS project, it is an opportunity for a sizable amount of money that will pass through the Foundation, a share of which will stay to fund our baseline activity such as infrastructure, etc. It is also the opportunity for some of the regular nixpkgs contributors to receive support for their work. It is also a risk: we must make sure no amount of money industrial actors could put on the table can buy the right to decide on the technical agenda of our project. For this reason, while the SC has been asked for "blanket" approval by the Foundation, I am doing my best to ensure we get all the contractual documents to review them before I cast my vote on the issue. Other committee members, such as Tom, John and Philip, have so far approved the plan to fund the CUDA team before the SC has received any kind of contractual documents or SoW. I'll also be sure to hear the perspective of the members of the CUDA team on the question.

Because it has become recently a very public matter, I feel compelled to react to the controversy around our meeting schedule that surfaced in our last meeting notes. In the beginning of March the US switched to their summer time, before most of Europe did. We did not discuss the consequences of this and organically the US members of SC showed up to meetings at the same time as before, but from the perspective of the other members, it meant the meeting had moved one hour forward. I personally got bitten by this all 3 meetings we've had since then because my entries in my calendar had not moved (which was even a calendar invitation I send to every SC member although I never claimed it was the source of truth). I have some amount of flexibility with my time so although it bothered me that we were meeting 1h before I expected it, I was able to show up to meetings. I found it also ironic that we were shifting our meeting time around US time even though we only have 3/7 people living in the US in the SC. However, neither me nor anyone else really tried to discuss the topic in a meeting or in between meetings. Christina, however, has been affected by this situation as she probably is checking our Zulip less often: she missed all 3 meetings since the schedule de facto changed. On our last meeting, Christina joined right after we adjourned the meeting, around 7pm. Understanding that the timezone confusion prevented her from attending the meeting, she complained in the call (and rightfully so) and we stopped the conversation there (the US/EU timezone re-aligned anyway between then and the next meeting). The conflict arose in the pull request with the meeting notes in our internal repository. Christina wanted to add some context to it explaining why she missed the meeting. I disagree with the way she did it — which framed the situation as a late announcement of the meeting in our Zulip, while it had been ongoing already for weeks — but ultimately I think that adding this kind of context is useful to the community. She and Philip disagreed about it and the situation escalated until it was promoted into a public issue. I am disappointed that such a trivial problem could not be discussed peacefully internally, and it shows (in my opinion) that the SC is still very much operating in "adversarial" mode.