> I was in a position of knowing some things yet not being able to do anything about it. It was untenable. I think the people responsible should name themselves, or be named by folks they work with directly.
What reasons are there to announce that one knows who should've resigned, in an announcement that refuses to identify them? Is it legal? Fear of retribution? Some internal Rust community process? Something I'm missing that the authors of these farewell letters assume everyone who follows Rust already knows?
Why be transparent over the lack of transparency but keep the problem intentionally and loudly opaque, rather than going the other way around and whistleblowing?
What benefit to the project does publicly quitting without explaining why provide?
>What reasons are there to announce that one knows who should've resigned, in an announcement that refuses to identify them? Is it legal? Fear of retribution? Some internal Rust community process? Something I'm missing that the authors of these farewell letters assume everyone who follows Rust already knows?
That it's not meant to point fingers to particular individuals ("X is bad, and should regign but hasn't") or serve as news coverage, but just describe the sittuation ("bad actors are still here")?
>Why be transparent over the lack of transparency but keep the problem intentionally and loudly opaque, rather than going the other way around and whistleblowing?
If you have to be part of the "secret backchannel" to know what's really going on, maybe that's the fundamental problem, no?
"Inclusiveness" is messy, annoying, irritating ... I can go on and on.
But Rust chose that. This was an explicit goal. With a Code of Conduct that attempts to enforce that.
What did people expect was going to happen when you have a "secret insider cabal" that, though their actions, is clearly in direct conflict with that explicit goal?
Spoiler: the kind of person who will inject themselves into a community to make it more "inclusive and diverse" is exactly the same kind of person who will join or create a secret insider cabal.
Exactly. GP is taking them at their word. "Inclusiveness" in this case is nothing more than a signifier for the friend/enemy distinction. I would add: backchannels are simply the way of the world.
I think the joke is on everyone who expected a project started by Mozilla still with a lot of influence by ex-Mozilla people not to have a lot of drama involved.
Look at Firefox. Its ratio of usage to drama is pretty high. Same with Rust.
I guess. TBH it seemed to me like rust success stories was more people like Bryan Cantrill who don't seem at all like the Mozilla people. Maybe this is a difference between practice and theorists.
AFAICT the whole subject was actual dislike of a project mixed with its irrelevance given the timeline. I find it entirely fair to downgrade someone's talk based on community feedback that they don't like a technical direction/topic/etc. I suppose it should hurt more to get honest negative sentiment on the direction of your actual work than random prejudice or something, and yes the dominant sentiment could be wrong, but I don't see how that is relevant let alone a valid source of drama for others.
Perhaps people who step down will be replaced by people who simply reject the criticism that they shouldn't make the best choice for what the community wants to hear about.
I don't get why he is disappointed at ThePrimeagen and the people that forked the language.
I only got to know about the trademark policy draft because of his video, and he was pretty much just reading the document and commenting about the weird stuff. Why would you be disappointed at someone who is just sharing information? I'm disappointed at who WROTE the document in the first place. What should ThePrimeagen have done? Just ignore it?
And who cares if some people forked the language? The language is open source, they are playing by the rules. Blaming the community won't solve anything, we should blame those in power.
> I don't get why he is disappointed at ThePrimeagen and the people that forked the language.
Yeah, that's because they didn't actually explain in the post why they were disappointed (other than some vague "they didn't have the full information whereas I do" remark).
It's a shame that Amos isn't involved in the governance, as - to this outsider - he seems to have both the technical chops plus the sort of calm personality that would smooth out a lot of the unnecessary drama
And from Mastodon: https://hachyderm.io/@fasterthanlime/110448658671548833
> I was in a position of knowing some things yet not being able to do anything about it. It was untenable. I think the people responsible should name themselves, or be named by folks they work with directly.
What reasons are there to announce that one knows who should've resigned, in an announcement that refuses to identify them? Is it legal? Fear of retribution? Some internal Rust community process? Something I'm missing that the authors of these farewell letters assume everyone who follows Rust already knows?
Why be transparent over the lack of transparency but keep the problem intentionally and loudly opaque, rather than going the other way around and whistleblowing?
What benefit to the project does publicly quitting without explaining why provide?