[intertextuality]

Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"? First I was "yelling" and now this...

My "different idea" is keeping the ability of non-English speakers to use the website and learn about Rust. I (and most people, I think) would not prefer a prettier site to one that has support for 10+ languages. Do you not agree?

My "position" is one of someone that heavily uses a language other than English. I very much enjoyed the old Rust site, because it meant I could actually show it to people around me, because their native language was supported. This isn't a tradeoff so much as a dealbreaker. What tradeoff was there for pushing the new website deployment too early?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an update that made the website prettier but removed i18n for no reason. Why? Was there a fiscal incentive to immediately replace the website before any translations could be done?

So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?

[kbenson]

> Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"?

Making as assertion about someone telling a lie comes across as that, if you're given the benefit of a doubt and assumed to not be someone that calls people out as liars with little evidence unless you get carried away.

But perhaps calling people liars is a normal mode of communication for you, and you didn't lose your cool at al. That's definitely one way to interpret the comments so far, given how you equate "criticizing" to how you've presented your position so far.

I think you had good points initially. I also think that when presented with facts about this specific situation you've allowed you argument to devolve into a stubborn stand based on technicalities while belittling others.

> So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?

Indeed.

[intertextuality]

I simply think we need to be honest about the language that we use. The truth is, instead of "nobody was happy", "nobody made i18n a priority" is far more accurate. Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.

If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed? That brings us to even more questions. Nothing presented thus far portrayed the decision to update in a better light, in fact it's only made my opinion of it worse.

I am used to websites having little to no i18n, but it's a complete mistake to actively remove existing i18n. For what? Rust 2018? A better looking landing page? Honestly now I'm just skeptical about the organizational structures that lead to this decision being approved.