> The recent incident with ThePHD’s keynote downgrade was not racially motivated, thankfully, but… if that’s what it looks like from the outside, and any form of official communication is still days or weeks away, does it really make a difference?
yes! it does!
we can't keep framing everything as race, gender, or orientation related. people have to have basic filters for what the most important issue is in a situation. stop falling back to "easy" outs or making sweeping statements about the "deeper systemic problem".
there are plenty of social problems which can't be solved by attaching every motive to every situation
I think it matters in so far as people who “don’t fit in” to a group often feel excluded from the group, and seeing people like you honored makes you feel more welcome. As a bunch of nerds surely we know what it feels like to be the odd man out. But what if you’re the odd man out in every context except for your family? What if you are the only one like yourself, the only one who when you walk in a room people stop talking and shift uncomfortably? Even in a room full of nerdy outsiders, you’re the outsider outsider. I don’t believe racism entered into the decision. But in tossing aside an opportunity to honor a black engineer for their legitimately earned achievements, you take away a chance to make that uncomfortable black engineer who feels outside the group a part of that group, and that is a shame. It doesn’t have to be the only decision making criteria. But in my life, opening doors to people and making the uncomfortable feel comfortable is important. I at least remember being socially uncomfortable and feeling like no one is like me at many points in my life. I know how that feels, and I know my experience was a shadow of what a black person experiences daily in the US, and in tech in particular where they are essentially unrepresented. Y’all don’t have to care how folks feel around you, but I was raised to love my neighbor, and small gestures to make entire classes of people feel welcome in my field when all evidence bears they’re not, I’ll take it.
I believe the reason they are saying it doesn’t matter, is that without a clear statement of what happened from the decision makers, people can speculate.
One of those things people will speculate on is if this was one of the reasons. The fact that it is also part of the equation means it can’t be outright ignored and so will also need to be addressed. On top of that, this is already an underrepresented group, and regardless of if it was a primary motivating factor, it does not help show that group that they are welcome and in fact harms any effort to do so.
It absolutely matters if it was or was not a factor in this decision, but without clear information about the decision making process, speculation will occur, and that in and of itself is harmful.
I don’t think the article is saying we should make everything into a question of race. Only that if Rust doesn’t reply, people will make up their mind, and people usually devolve to the lowest common denominator, which, in this case, is a race issue.
Maybe the downgrade not, but the original keynote was, but we can only guess. I don't think it's popular to vote against a black person being the keynote speaker.
At the same time this keynote is nowhere near as interesting as last year's async stabilization keynote, I think we can all agree on that.
If all you care about is appearances, it doesn't matter at all whether discrimination actually took place. If you do actually care about discrimination, it matters quite a lot whether it happened.
The last few incidents have been damaging with or without communication. For large companies who need stability to ship software - the Rust story has been one of what looks like a good language being destroyed by shitty leadership and shitty drama.
In a way, I find this entire saga incredibly funny. There is so much hand wringing and pearl clutching at something that is supposedly in the shadows - this cabal of four or five people making decisions - that it makes the entire Rust "community" look juvenile. This is the kind of internecine conflict I should see in Anime discord servers, not about a language whose governance involves multiple major corporations!
Wish we had more role models these days who were willing to disagree with decisions and work to fix them rather than loudly resign or point fingers. Feels like there is a lot of pressure these days that if you are part of a "bad" system then _you_ are bad, even if you are trying to improve it from the inside. So it's understandable people quit instead of taking on the burden of having to prove their "goodness", it's just a shame our media/algorithms lazily spread outrage rather than spotlight diligence and compromise.
>This is the kind of internecine conflict I should see in Anime discord servers
Anime/furry culture has a significant overlap with the Rust community as far as I can tell as an outsider. E.g. there was that guy developing a Linux GPU driver for M1 Macs, narrating it with an anime "waifu" avatar and a speech plugin that makes you sound like a little girl from a Japanese cartoon.
> This is the kind of internecine conflict I should see in Anime discord servers, not about a language whose governance involves multiple major corporations!
I love this.
On one hand this is an indicator for our expectations. Adult stuff should be handled by adults, with wisdom and maturity.
On the other hand it is a sample of reality as it is (distinct from the shoulds we project) - no, corporations and adult organizations are not led/ruled by mature people, and not everyone acts wisely all of the time. This is the reality.
I like to believe that acknowledging that and creating organizations to be resilient in the context of immaturity, pettiness, confusion… humanity(!) is the way.
We do have some examples of nature leadership but these are the exceptions to the rule. People are people, let’s figure in their humanity.
So what I’m interested in are org structures supporting and correcting for fairness, wisdom, maturity.
There's a little bit of a "getting out at the right time so I can say I was there when it was good" vibe to it. As a total Rust outsider I can understand. Last time I tried to learn it, it seemed to prefer trading one set of problems ubiquitous to computing for a worse set unique to its niche. I don't know if people really like it or just want to be seen liking it, but I'd rather keep turning the wheel that makes Java code and have time for my other interests.
Are you suggesting there’s a difference in how conflict is handled in major corps vs anime discords? I think you’re doing a disservice to anime discords everywhere…
> Part of me is very disappointed in the enormous waste of time that is the “crablang” fork, and wishes the people involved could have engaged in a constructive manner instead.
Any group who decides to fork Rust probably isn't in a position of power to turn the whole Rust Project and Rust Foundation into something less messy. Without knowing any of the specifics about this "crablang" fork, creating a well-resourced, thoughtfully governed fork is often a pretty good solution to stewardship issues, and sometimes, new governance structures and procedures can even be ported back into the original project (see node.js vs io.js). Writing it off as "an enormous waste of time" where the people involved should have "engaged in a constructive manner instead" seems disingenuous.
Not that this is a core part of the post, and this doesn't detract from the overall message.
I am surprised how people pretend to be outraged over a fork of an open source language.
They are outraged by the fork because having a fork reach thousand stars so quickly made it harder to ignore the reality that people who love the language were fed up with the leadership.
Forking is the essence of open source software. Don't like something somebody else is doing with a software? It's open source, so you do it your way.
Also, please allow the crablang people to waste their time the way they want to. Some people watch Netflix, some people will create a fork and learn more about the project. They don't need anyone's permission or approval.
When I say “I wish they could have (engaged in a more constructive way)” it’s an indictment of the lack of avenues through which one can constructively engage with the project.
I feel like the fork was exploitative, but I also feel like there isn’t a lot else they could’ve done, even if they wanted to. It’s sadness all around, right now.
'I know nothing about the situation, but this comment about it seems disingenuous' is not a great reasoning strategy. It's not well-resourced, it's not thoughtfully governed, and it wasn't a stewardship issue. It was people believing YouTube disinformation about what a trademark is for and what it implies, and forking the project just so that the name and logo could be changed to one sans trademark.
Fasterthanlime is something like my spirit animal. Prolific and educational blogs that have challenged my knowledge with whimsy joy and catharsis. Also apparently emotionally intelligent and making the right moves here.
Sometimes it's better to drop out and start something new. An unofficial convention would be fantastic.
I'm sick of the clout chasing in these niche tech areas, it always drowns out the real passion and all the fun. The passion that fosters a healthy community and technological success.
Sometimes I wish a personality test was common for these ad hoc governance type positions (not just rust but with any OSS software). Not to exclude people but to decide if things are balanced. The people who want nothing to do with these systems often should be the ones figuring it out, but the people leaving trails of bodies behind them to plant their flag should be nowhere near them.
Thanks for sticking up for the people resigning and framing the bullshit in a realistic way. Also thanks for staying positive and I hope you keep blogging!
Ain't that the old problem, the ones who should be in those positions tend to run from them and those that shouldn't run towards those positions. I don't think it's a problem we're anywhere close to solving unfortunately. We just sort of assign someone who seems reluctant about it but won't run from the position, but in most cases we just let whoever asks first!
> Also apparently emotionally intelligent and making the right moves here.
One thing I really appreciate about Amos is that he spent a long time reflecting on the kind of person that he would like to be. If you look at his content from over 5 years ago, when he created his own programming language seemingly out of spite, you can see how much he has grown. It's very impressive and I wish him every success.
As it turns out, the qualities and skills that make someone an excellent systems programming language developer are completely orthogonal to the qualities and skills that make someone effective in governing a loose organization made up mostly of volunteers and subject to worldwide scrutiny.
Uh, at this point, just name them? What is this, Hollywood? Where everyone knows what's happening but doesn't say anything until a big scandal occurs and everyone piles on?
“I was able to reassure myself, by checking these private discussion places, that there were good people, fighting for the right thing to be done. That things weren’t irremediably broken. That there was hope for improvement in the near future.”
From the linked article, that probably makes it clear that they believe Rust Leadership screwed up, and probably represents why naming individuals might not be helpful, and could hurt the project even more than this episode already has.
The real question is what is the fix, and they need to implement it soon.
I gess the point is not to blame whoever did this, but to change the system, so that no single person can have the authority to do something like this again.
Names would be named if that were really the problem. I don’t think it is. The common thread between this and the Foundation trademark drama is that the Project sucks at coordinating and communicating - they have been bigfooters late in the process and not servants earlier on.
> Part of me is very disappointed at ThePrimeagen, the Twitch streamer / YouTuber with whom I used to be friendly, for milking those controversies for every view and sub possible. For riling up the masses, adding fuel to the fire, creating the exact opposite of the climate we need to solve these issues.
Nah. Bureaucracies don't even try to solve these issues if there isn't a public backlash.
He also like just read the original blog post on stream, said a couple of things about it, mentioned that it's not good that this stuff is happening and moved on. Honestly I don't really see much milking there.
I think this Rust drama is way over-exaggerated. One community member made one decision for one conference which they probably thought wouldn't be a big deal (I understand now that it is, but to an outsider "keynote downgraded to regular presentation" don't seem like much). And now multiple people are leaving the Rust team, and some random commentators are "disgraced" by the Rust Project, and "threatening" to stop using Rust?
The best solution would be to just reverse the downgrade, and have ThePHD deliver the keynote. Send a strong message that there would be a major fallout had the Rust Project committed to their internally-made decision, but give them a chance to actually do the right thing. But that's presumably not happening, because ThePHD already left the presentation without giving them a chance to respond.
I also think the "Rust logo" controversy was over-exaggerated, since they didn't actually implement the copyright but only proposed to. And the entire mod team resigning made the mod team look bad, at least initially, because they didn't even really explain why.
The bright side of this over-reaction is that it's going to get some response from the Rust Project. Because apparently strong words are the only way to get a closed-door organization to respond appropriately. They'll post some sort of apology, and maybe it won't just be words, but they will actually become more transparent in a way that guarantees this will never happen again. Like how they all but walked back the copyright proposal and re-structured the core team following mod team resignation (or did they?).
But that's not an excuse. This sort of drama is toxic, I honestly think more toxic than the original action. Like, I feel bad for whoever made the anonymous decision to downgrade ThePHD's keynote, because even though it was wrong and hurtful, it doesn't deserve this level of vitriol. There needs to be better a way to get change than over-reacting to every mistake.
I really do hope the Rust project becomes more transparent, not only to prevent the situation from happening in the future, but the response. If everything has community input, when bad decisions happen the community can only blame themselves.
> One community member made one decision for one conference which they probably thought wouldn't be a big deal (I understand now that it is, but to an outsider "keynote downgraded to regular presentation" don't seem like much).
One person should not have been able to reverse the decision that was made by a collective leadership vote. The fact that was allowed to happen is a failure of governance.
One of the people who left was the one who initially nominated ThePHD for the keynote. To have your nomination approved by a vote and then unilaterally overturned by someone working through backchannels would make me angry, too. If I was volunteering a bunch of time to a project that did that to me I might consider stepping down over it.
I have no knowledge beyond what's been on Hacker News today, but usually these blowups are over longstanding tensions, even though it looks like an overreaction on the surface.
If they can work out a proper apology and accountability, and restore the keynote, great. But the damage is done, and simply inviting the speaker back is not going to make amends.
> downgrade was not racially motivated, thankfully
Who would have suspected this was racially motivated?
Not to defend any actions by anyone, but a keynote is an unusual place to talk about experimental feature a language is considering (unless it's a small component of a bigger update/forecast). That said once the decision was made they should have gone through with it.
If someone is in the minority, it's totally reasonable to ask, "could their minority status be a factor in their disenfranchisement?"
Then you look at the data, and in this case come to the conclusion, "no, it was not a factor."
That seems healthy and normal, it's not outrage bait to acknowledge that yes, sometimes minorities are at a disadvantage or are under represented.
It's just as fallacious to say "of course race was a factor" as it is to say "of course race was not a factor". Much better to ask openly, evaluate the data, and make an informed conclusion.
> a keynote is an unusual place to talk about experimental feature a language is considering (unless it's a small component of a bigger update/forecast).
Quite the opposite, I believe. Since a keynote is seen by a dramatically larger slice of the audience, it's a good slot for talks meant to provoke thoughts and discussion, even if that discussion isn't necessarily one you agree with.
> who would have suspected this was racially motivated?
For the last several years, there are many people and groups who have gotten tremendous positive feedback from being a victim. So, many people would jump to this conclusion for outrage, sympathy, and signaling their virtue.
Thankfully, it seems it may be coming to an end now since it’s disruptive and at odds with reality.
"And most of the time, it turned out that the intentions were, in fact, good! But the execution was poor — or that there was a lack of resources, a lack of process, or a lack of manpower, or a deadline to hold, or it was just that person being that person again.
...
And it’s not like they’re really bad people, it’s more like they tend to… use back channels rather than follow process? Or they have too many responsibilities, and are unable to fulfill all of them properly? Or maybe they don’t listen enough?
Or maybe it’s not individuals, but pairs of individuals who have a feud for some reason or other (sometimes completely valid). Maybe one party feels slighted by something that happened years ago, maybe they have irreconcilable goals or technical views, or differing opinions on what belongs where."
The complaint has not been that they are bad people, it's that they are incompetent. This seems to confirm that some of the people involved are indeed incompetent.
This seems way more cut and dry than the author is portraying.
Kinda crazy that this was supposed to be a clean slate for Rust governance.
> Part of me is very disappointed at ThePrimeagen.. For riling up the masses, adding fuel to the fire, creating the exact opposite of the climate we need to solve these issues.
Isn't public controversy the exact atmosphere these blog posts and resignations, for lack of a better word -- drama, is meant to foment?
FTR I think Prime is just as wrong about this as anyone. The real issue was the issue re: trademark, etc. The real issue here is a failure of leadership. When you're in leadership and someone does something bad, why resign? Why not request an apology? When it's not given, why not build support for an apology? When an apology is again not forthcoming, you can publicly resign, but when you do, maybe some others will too, and you can say "10 of us signed a letter requesting an apology, including 3 members of his/her own team, and it was refused"?
Some technical people are unsurprisingly bad at leadership duties, and sometimes tactless, because these are difficult things, and we need to stop pretending they aren't.
There is no quick fix, but someone needs to do something other than just resign, because it's not leadership, and so far it's proven to do very little other than create more drama.
> It’s really more like those 4 or 5 persons. And it’s not like they’re really bad people, it’s more like they tend to… use back channels rather than follow process? Or they have too many responsibilities, and are unable to fulfill all of them properly? Or maybe they don’t listen enough?
If it's 4-5 people, it sounds more like there is a cultural problem that needs to be fixed, and if I were to guess that cultural problem is -- there perhaps need to be soft-technical PM-like, senior statesmen tracks. There needs to be someone not involved in the day to day who can listen, help settle disputes, smooth things over, and direct/focus teams, because it doesn't sound like these technical people are acting like leaders. And jerky behavior should have consequences.
When did programming, and the choice of implementation, become people's identities? These endless drama sagas just makes everyone look very childish, from the outside. I don't think we would see this in other engineering fields. Embarrassing.
It's not JeanHeyd Meneide's (PhD) first time rage quitting. He has a history of this. He previously rage quitted from the C++ community and moved to the C community. I wonder where he's moving to next.
https://youtu.be/vaLKm9FE8oo
> The recent incident with ThePHD’s keynote downgrade was not racially motivated, thankfully, but… if that’s what it looks like from the outside, and any form of official communication is still days or weeks away, does it really make a difference?
who actually perceives this situation this way? why would anyone perceive this situation this way, by default? this statement is needlessly inflammatory to a ridiculous degree—why would anyone assume overt anti-black bigotry as being the cause for any decision in any professional circle, in this year of our Lord Twenty Twenty-Three? why pour fuel on the fire like this?
this is yet another major red flag that indicates that I should stay far away from this "community"—there's clearly motivations and frames of thought at play here that don't mirror my perception of the real world in a very concerning way.
I’m with you, but have you not been around the last few years? American society is absolutely obsessed with white supremacy. This is true in the media, the highest levels of government, and in big tech.
I personally listened to paid guest lecturers tell me all white people are racist, and those who deny it are proving their racism. In my workplace.
People are brainwashed to believe and see this stuff at this point, and there is an industry monetizing it.
As an outsider, when I see drama in the Rust community, I always assume it has something to do with 2SLGBTQIA+ discrimination or racism. In this case, I was surprised when I skimmed the blog post to see none of that, although maybe I was missing some subtle subtext embedded in the pronoun usage or words like "discomfort." I can't follow this stuff anymore.
What am I missing? The rust board, or whatever entity, booked a keynote and then unceremoniously canceled it, right? Poor diplomacy, but why is there so much chiming on and so many allusions of various -isms?
From the handful of things posted here to HN about the "developing issue", it looks like:
* Someone was invited to give a keynote; this was voted on at some point
* After the invitation was made and everything was done, some concerns were raised about the content of the talk -- apparently about whether the keynote slot would be seen as an endorsement of the technical contents by the Rust leadership.
* Someone in Rust leadership unilaterally asked for the talk to be downgraded from a keynote to a "normal talk", without telling anyone else or calling for another vote
* The invited speaker, recognizing something political going on, decided to "not play the game" and decided not to speak at all.
* One of the people who voted to invite said speaker to give a keynote, but never heard about the request to "downgrade", decided to resign.
As someone who is also involved in an open-source project with procedures and bylaws and such -- it seems like part of the issue has been certain people in the Rust leadership not being conscientious about following the process. I do believe that back-channel communication and coordination is necessary in real life. However, I also believe that confidence in the process itself is important. Having determined that something was necessary to be done, the person in question should have raised an official vote (perhaps talking to people individually beforehand); and having broken official procedures, that person should at very least apologize publicly for doing so, and perhaps be removed from a leadership role (at least for some period of time, maybe a year).
The author of this piece says people were "trying to do the right thing"; I mean, sure, we're all trying to do the right thing -- but when you screw up, you need to own it.
Go to HN page 2 and grep for Rust. More drama with the rust governance or something. They gave someone a professional honorific and took it back for unstated and less then satisfying reasons. The person it happened too seems to be a good enough person and some nice people left the rust org over it.
OSS is funny to me in some capacities. A marketed positive of OSS is "You can fork it and make your own changes!", and yet, when someone actually does this with a prolific project (Rust and Node.js are the big two that come to mind), they're met with "How dare they! This is exploitive and unproductive!"
I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there is one, but the prospect of forking a major project and being met with positivity seems to be pretty unproven.
> Part of me is very disappointed at ThePrimeagen, the Twitch streamer / YouTuber with whom I used to be friendly, for milking those controversies for every view and sub possible. For riling up the masses, adding fuel to the fire, creating the exact opposite of the climate we need to solve these issues.
It is ridiculous that ThePrimeagen has been called out (without whom I wouldn't have taken interest in learning Rust). He has been an avid supporter of Rust until the trademark fiasco broke out. No where did he "rile up the masses" or "added fuel to the fire". The trademark draft was really bad. End of story.
> Except, it’s never just that one person, you know? Otherwise I could burn myself by outing them, and do the whole community a favor. It’s really more like those 4 or 5 persons.
This is why I find it hypocritical. In the entire document there is no mention of even one person (or these group of insiders) who are creating these issues in the community. However, the one outsider who has been vocally supporting Rust (even made an entire Rust course on Frontend Masters) is being targeted.
Should tell you everything there is to tell about how the community has devolved.
Yeah, sometimes the fire is burning something which should be burnt, and "adding fuel to the fire" is the right thing to do. People are "adding fuel to the fire" regarding political decisions all the time, to get the masses engaged and make them pick a side.
And in the absence of a democratic process for decision-making, the only recourse we have, as people who depend on the projects governed by these groups, is to shout loudly enough to be noticed. If "throwing fuel at the fire" is what's needed to get enough people to engage to stop a really bad policy from going through, it's the right thing to do.
Pretty shitty move to single out ThePrimeagen. He has done more for the Rust community in raising awareness of bullshit and also educating people on the technical intricacies of Rust (much akin the Jon Gjengset videos) than a lot of these 'in' folks.
Yes, calling out someone for reporting on drama, as though the drama isn't a problem, it's your fault for gawking at it, is a strange choice. I think it's not unrelated to the ego-centric nature of these Rust drama events.
There is obviously a lot of criticism justly being leveled at the poor quality of governance on Rust thus far, but I think a fair point I haven't seen raised is, what other languages lacking a corporate sponsor as the primary driver of governance have done better? (and why)
Python is the main example I can think of after graduating from governance via BDFL, but is there any other new language which has achieved the same level of popularity as Rust?
So far, most of the drama seems to have been tangential to actual language features, so they at least deserve some credit for keeping technical aspects of development mostly on track.
Thresholds of complexity are much, much lower than is usually believed.
The original sin of C was to release an informal [under]specification. Kernighan and Ritchie failed, catastrophically, to foresee the phenomenon of management pressure to release/productionize software written by people who only half-knew the language. K&R C (or each of its de facto, platform-bound reference implementations) was at least simple enough to learn. None of its successors have been. Verifiable or maintainable software cannot be written in any language that is too complex to understand (or that is in any way underspecified). Verifiable or maintainable software cannot be written in any language that its developer has only half learned. And software that is not both verifiable and maintainable is worse than no software at all.
Start naming and shaming people, let the internet have its field day and let's all go home. We all know people will reconverge at one point anyway. We all also know that nobody will get harmed regardless of all the drama.
I expect much more from adult people. Go drink some tea and have a 3-hour walk with your dog or partner or a friend, deliberately don't touch the computer for 24h and let's see how differently you'll react.
Also, injecting identity politics in a programming language foundation has been a mistake from the get go. Sounds like opportunism.
My code of conduct would be "don't be an a-hole no matter what race or sexual orientation somebody has -- and anyone being a d-bag will get shown the door, no exceptions". That's plenty enough and most people out there have enough common sense to know what you mean when you say it.
Also can we recognize that forks of popular programming languages NEVER truly take off.
So yeah, take a few deep breaths, disengage for a while and you might be surprised of the different thoughts that come to you after.
Let's tone down the drama already, this already became super embarrassing for all parties.
> let the internet have its field day and let's all go home...We all also know that nobody will get harmed regardless of all the drama
It's easy to say this when one is not the target. I imagine it would be difficult to ignore doxing, death threats, swatting, and/or harassing of family and friends.
these things keep happening and it shows a deeper problem with rust leadership and unaccountability.
Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago (which was also not the first Rust Drama), every community member - from speakers to organizers and regular language users - is confused, frustrated, feeling unappreciated with very slow official response and clarification.
I don't want witch hunting, I understand some of the people involved are volunteers, but if there is a drama every month, someone is doing something wrong and all we see from the outside is that someone acts shady and there is no consequences.
I'm not saying they are evil people, I don't hate anyone, I just think that they should do something else with their precious volunteer time.
> Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago
I think those are different. Rust trademark policy is more a case of miscommunication, while this seems more deliberate.
Rust Foundation iirc made a draft statement but rather than saying "We'll take community feedback into consideration" went with a much more vague "We'll might take this into consideration". At least that's my impressions.
It was fairly bad trademark policy forbidding crates from using rust and cargo. `cargo x` 99% of the time was some cargo plugin.
It really seems from what I've read over time, there are a tight core oligarchy of 4 or 5 people who think they are the end all be all of decision making and everyone else be damned. They will defend each other against all outsiders. I've seen this on other committees, it's never pretty when it finally comes crashing down around their heads. I hope this doesn't continue to tarnish the reputation of rust as a great language to learn and expand upon.
RMS has explicitly tried to claim the ability to veto group decisions within GNU affiliated projects in the past even though he never had that power implicitly nor explicitly in the past.
His cancellation has as much to do with pissing off so many of the people around him as anything else.
As an outsider with a professional interest in the language, it's hard (well, tiresome) to sift through the various committees and boards to identify the people who actually design and implement the language.
If there's one thing I've learned from most of this it's that paying attention to the people in charge is probably not worth the effort. They come and go, lots of drama, and insiders are reporting the ones who are there probably shouldn't be.
I sense too much bureaucracy and micromanagement. I would typically expect that from 25+ year old languages. A technology as young as Rust shouldn't be riddled with drama.
I don't want to add to the drama here, but I would suggest to Amos to just say what you want to say. If saying it would burn you to the point you would have to leave the community, find a way to say what you need to say to address the situation that doesn't burn you out of the community. If there is absolutely no way to address the issue where you aren't chased out then take a hard look at your own communication style, talk it out with trusted people who can give you perspective, and finally take a hard look at whether this is even a community that is worth being a part of.
Don't post a bunch of emotional, vague, unclear semi-accusations against people you won't even name. This is just adding to a bunch of drama with no possibility of any positive outcome.
As a complete outsider to Rust, all I can say is that the Rust community should use this recent "drama" as a stepping stone to figure out the leadership problems and move on with a much stronger determination in the future.
I totally understand that perhaps all of this is not that big of a deal at all considering that sites like Hacker News puts tens of thousands of eyeballs on you in a split second. But if there's something I've learned from these very sites is that Rust is a respected language and these kind of fallouts reek of issues that have nothing to do with the language itself but the people that are supposedly in positions of power.
This is the reason why we cannot take the Rust community seriously with these tantrums. We have given them enough time to get a grip on this nonsense and instead they are embarrassing themselves with pantomimes like this.
I had very high hopes on Rust, but it seems that they have to find another tiny first world issue to complain about and magnify it into a giant nothing.
Admittedly, this whole saga is more entertaining than the average pantomime but even that has its limits of banana slip-ups. There is a time where this 'entertainment' just turns into pure incompetence of this so-called community and its governance, which becomes very boring blazingly fast.
Yeah, this whole drama feels so unnecessary and stupid. If you feel a burning need to create a huge drama clusterfuck, have it about some controversial change to the language, not about a single talk at a conference. This is just a fucking waste of time.
As a casual Rust user, the message that I get from this is that I should not spend time with the Rust community.
Then some ideas of the post went over your head. Whenever there are people there will be drama, and you wrong when you lump together ordinary contributors and drama queen. A community is not a hivemind.
It is not as if the C++ standards committee, or Google (go) or Oracle (Java) are free from drama. It just tends to leak into public view less frequently.
This is why I refuse to take Rust, Go, or Swift seriously. There are so many other languages out there that aren't insanely political with so many people's hands in it. There is no way good decisions can be made in an environment like that. Of course, the main advantage of joining the Rust cult is that the job market for "Rust programmers" is pretty well-defined, so labeling yourself as a "Rust programmer" will allow you to tap into those markets. But I'd argue those markets are pretty bad.
I've only seen the wars over when and if to adopt new C and C++ standards in the distant periphery, but it seems like any attempt to encode human interests and needs into systems through code brings about strife. The politics there might be less visible since it happens on mailing lists and old forums no one's ever heard of, but the only difference is visibility.
New languages will inevitably adopt the means of communication they grew up in. That's blogs and gists and tweets.
Possibly controversial take, but I don’t think it’s helpful to gossip about who the bad apples are. Either take a risk and name names, or wait until the dust settles.
Why does Rust drama pop up every once in awhile? Why are adults publishing soap opera drama on github? This is all for maintaining a programming language?
> Part of me is very disappointed at ThePrimeagen, the Twitch streamer / YouTuber with whom I used to be friendly, for milking those controversies for every view and sub possible. For riling up the masses, adding fuel to the fire, creating the exact opposite of the climate we need to solve these issues.
Nobody wants to name the one guy who Secret Hitler'd the keynote, but man let's name call a streamer unaffiliated with the project as soon as we can because he read the original blog post on stream and said 'this is bad'.
The cynic in me thinks that shot from fasterthanlime is more to do with ThePrimeagen being the new React Andy in the same content creation space as him, scooping up views/subscriptions.
The rush is revealing. A rush to proclaim their friends are good people, a rush to run away from their friends, a rush to point fingers at people who are not their friends. Finally, rushing into Reddit and HN to damage control over the rush.
Out of all the things that could own a person and ruin their judgement, a toxic programming language committee ought to rank at the bottom.
As a Gopher sometimes am always wondering what’s the big deal ?, like proposal rejecting is like a second nature, who want to talk about features about a particular language? esp a language like go ?, maybe because there’s too much “entitled” devs in the rust community ( tbh I wouldn’t be surprised ) well am always here with my popcorn for more drama
Would be really good a change no the communication side. But I am without expectations side there where days without any explanation about why a draft for trademark pourposes was so bad.
Now working with Rust I have the same feelings as working with Java...
I can explain it for you: when you start writing a long complicated legal agreement, you never start from scratch. You almost always ask your lawyer to prepare the first draft and they take another agreement that's similar to the one you want and find-replace the names and modify a few parts of it. The early draft is never anything close to what you want and the hard work is hammering it into shape.
The document that they circulated was clearly a bunch of boilerplate. They assumed (wrongly) that the wider audience would have the same understanding and view of it that they did: that it was an early draft, subject to change. But the internet is not capable of such nuance.
Someone was invited to speak as a keynote speaker by the rust team. They worked with the Rust team on the presentation, and seem to have been actively encouraged to do so. Shortly after, they were told by the conference operator that they were being downgraded to a regular speaker, and they blogged their thoughts on why they were asked, and decided to (publicly) pull out of speaking at all. Then a member of the rust leadership team said that a subgroup of the leadership team made the call to remove the speaker from the keynote, and as such this member resigned.
Any committee of people usually means the worst of them - just like your HOA - the people who actually like doing this stuff of politicking and backstabbing are usually the worst people to lead.
Thank god we have a benevolent dictator for Linux and supporting actors (long may they live), really can't imagine the mess Linux it would have become if we had a committee.
Honestly this is a very bad look for both sides. But resigning over this tops everything. You don't resign at the first sign something is wrong, you try to help fix it. Sure if that doesn't work resign. No social environment is perfect and mistakes will always be made.
Time for a fork? "Rust without identity politics?" Require anonymity and disclaimers of any human presence (virtues or failings) in regards to the Project in order to become a contributor.
In most non-profit organizations, in the absence(s) of leadership or courage, most of the time the more sociopathic, unreasonable, and stubborn people tend to glom onto power while the opposite move on.
In principle I can agree that Rust (like so many things in tech) is a bit of a sausage fest, and that women can, in my experience, often be better leaders than men especially when it comes to emotional/communication matters like with this whole mess.
The wording "real woman" however immediately smells like an attempt to exclude trans women, of whom there are quite a few in the Rust community - even if that wasn't your intention at all, it might explain at least some of the downvotes though.
rustthrow|2 years ago
yes! it does!
we can't keep framing everything as race, gender, or orientation related. people have to have basic filters for what the most important issue is in a situation. stop falling back to "easy" outs or making sweeping statements about the "deeper systemic problem".
there are plenty of social problems which can't be solved by attaching every motive to every situation
fnordpiglet|2 years ago
bluejekyll|2 years ago
One of those things people will speculate on is if this was one of the reasons. The fact that it is also part of the equation means it can’t be outright ignored and so will also need to be addressed. On top of that, this is already an underrepresented group, and regardless of if it was a primary motivating factor, it does not help show that group that they are welcome and in fact harms any effort to do so.
It absolutely matters if it was or was not a factor in this decision, but without clear information about the decision making process, speculation will occur, and that in and of itself is harmful.
felipellrocha|2 years ago
xiphias2|2 years ago
At the same time this keynote is nowhere near as interesting as last year's async stabilization keynote, I think we can all agree on that.
jadamson|2 years ago
krainboltgreene|2 years ago
No one is doing this, problem solved.
tanepiper|2 years ago
twic|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
d3nj4l|2 years ago
twelfthnight|2 years ago
meindnoch|2 years ago
Anime/furry culture has a significant overlap with the Rust community as far as I can tell as an outsider. E.g. there was that guy developing a Linux GPU driver for M1 Macs, narrating it with an anime "waifu" avatar and a speech plugin that makes you sound like a little girl from a Japanese cartoon.
andrei_says_|2 years ago
I love this.
On one hand this is an indicator for our expectations. Adult stuff should be handled by adults, with wisdom and maturity.
On the other hand it is a sample of reality as it is (distinct from the shoulds we project) - no, corporations and adult organizations are not led/ruled by mature people, and not everyone acts wisely all of the time. This is the reality.
I like to believe that acknowledging that and creating organizations to be resilient in the context of immaturity, pettiness, confusion… humanity(!) is the way.
We do have some examples of nature leadership but these are the exceptions to the rule. People are people, let’s figure in their humanity.
So what I’m interested in are org structures supporting and correcting for fairness, wisdom, maturity.
Tao3300|2 years ago
xoac|2 years ago
boxed|2 years ago
throwawaymaths|2 years ago
tra3|2 years ago
amelius|2 years ago
bakugo|2 years ago
[deleted]
DoneWithAllThat|2 years ago
[deleted]
mort96|2 years ago
Any group who decides to fork Rust probably isn't in a position of power to turn the whole Rust Project and Rust Foundation into something less messy. Without knowing any of the specifics about this "crablang" fork, creating a well-resourced, thoughtfully governed fork is often a pretty good solution to stewardship issues, and sometimes, new governance structures and procedures can even be ported back into the original project (see node.js vs io.js). Writing it off as "an enormous waste of time" where the people involved should have "engaged in a constructive manner instead" seems disingenuous.
Not that this is a core part of the post, and this doesn't detract from the overall message.
serial_dev|2 years ago
They are outraged by the fork because having a fork reach thousand stars so quickly made it harder to ignore the reality that people who love the language were fed up with the leadership.
Forking is the essence of open source software. Don't like something somebody else is doing with a software? It's open source, so you do it your way.
Also, please allow the crablang people to waste their time the way they want to. Some people watch Netflix, some people will create a fork and learn more about the project. They don't need anyone's permission or approval.
88joshgree|2 years ago
"now with 100% less bureaucracy!"
not sure they are trying to create a "well-resourced, thoughtfully governed fork"?
fasterthanlime|2 years ago
I feel like the fork was exploitative, but I also feel like there isn’t a lot else they could’ve done, even if they wanted to. It’s sadness all around, right now.
pie_flavor|2 years ago
cookieperson|2 years ago
Sometimes it's better to drop out and start something new. An unofficial convention would be fantastic.
I'm sick of the clout chasing in these niche tech areas, it always drowns out the real passion and all the fun. The passion that fosters a healthy community and technological success.
Sometimes I wish a personality test was common for these ad hoc governance type positions (not just rust but with any OSS software). Not to exclude people but to decide if things are balanced. The people who want nothing to do with these systems often should be the ones figuring it out, but the people leaving trails of bodies behind them to plant their flag should be nowhere near them.
Thanks for sticking up for the people resigning and framing the bullshit in a realistic way. Also thanks for staying positive and I hope you keep blogging!
waboremo|2 years ago
timClicks|2 years ago
One thing I really appreciate about Amos is that he spent a long time reflecting on the kind of person that he would like to be. If you look at his content from over 5 years ago, when he created his own programming language seemingly out of spite, you can see how much he has grown. It's very impressive and I wish him every success.
FranksTV|2 years ago
iknowstuff|2 years ago
bluejekyll|2 years ago
From the linked article, that probably makes it clear that they believe Rust Leadership screwed up, and probably represents why naming individuals might not be helpful, and could hurt the project even more than this episode already has.
The real question is what is the fix, and they need to implement it soon.
gozzoo|2 years ago
xh-dude|2 years ago
ummonk|2 years ago
Nah. Bureaucracies don't even try to solve these issues if there isn't a public backlash.
kristoff_it|2 years ago
avgcorrection|2 years ago
armchairhacker|2 years ago
The best solution would be to just reverse the downgrade, and have ThePHD deliver the keynote. Send a strong message that there would be a major fallout had the Rust Project committed to their internally-made decision, but give them a chance to actually do the right thing. But that's presumably not happening, because ThePHD already left the presentation without giving them a chance to respond.
I also think the "Rust logo" controversy was over-exaggerated, since they didn't actually implement the copyright but only proposed to. And the entire mod team resigning made the mod team look bad, at least initially, because they didn't even really explain why.
The bright side of this over-reaction is that it's going to get some response from the Rust Project. Because apparently strong words are the only way to get a closed-door organization to respond appropriately. They'll post some sort of apology, and maybe it won't just be words, but they will actually become more transparent in a way that guarantees this will never happen again. Like how they all but walked back the copyright proposal and re-structured the core team following mod team resignation (or did they?).
But that's not an excuse. This sort of drama is toxic, I honestly think more toxic than the original action. Like, I feel bad for whoever made the anonymous decision to downgrade ThePHD's keynote, because even though it was wrong and hurtful, it doesn't deserve this level of vitriol. There needs to be better a way to get change than over-reacting to every mistake.
I really do hope the Rust project becomes more transparent, not only to prevent the situation from happening in the future, but the response. If everything has community input, when bad decisions happen the community can only blame themselves.
CrazyStat|2 years ago
One person should not have been able to reverse the decision that was made by a collective leadership vote. The fact that was allowed to happen is a failure of governance.
One of the people who left was the one who initially nominated ThePHD for the keynote. To have your nomination approved by a vote and then unilaterally overturned by someone working through backchannels would make me angry, too. If I was volunteering a bunch of time to a project that did that to me I might consider stepping down over it.
dehrmann|2 years ago
phlakaton|2 years ago
throwawaymaths|2 years ago
Who would have suspected this was racially motivated?
Not to defend any actions by anyone, but a keynote is an unusual place to talk about experimental feature a language is considering (unless it's a small component of a bigger update/forecast). That said once the decision was made they should have gone through with it.
chippiewill|2 years ago
gishbunker|2 years ago
Then you look at the data, and in this case come to the conclusion, "no, it was not a factor."
That seems healthy and normal, it's not outrage bait to acknowledge that yes, sometimes minorities are at a disadvantage or are under represented.
It's just as fallacious to say "of course race was a factor" as it is to say "of course race was not a factor". Much better to ask openly, evaluate the data, and make an informed conclusion.
jcranmer|2 years ago
Quite the opposite, I believe. Since a keynote is seen by a dramatically larger slice of the audience, it's a good slot for talks meant to provoke thoughts and discussion, even if that discussion isn't necessarily one you agree with.
ra1231963|2 years ago
For the last several years, there are many people and groups who have gotten tremendous positive feedback from being a victim. So, many people would jump to this conclusion for outrage, sympathy, and signaling their virtue.
Thankfully, it seems it may be coming to an end now since it’s disruptive and at odds with reality.
ZephyrBlu|2 years ago
...
And it’s not like they’re really bad people, it’s more like they tend to… use back channels rather than follow process? Or they have too many responsibilities, and are unable to fulfill all of them properly? Or maybe they don’t listen enough?
Or maybe it’s not individuals, but pairs of individuals who have a feud for some reason or other (sometimes completely valid). Maybe one party feels slighted by something that happened years ago, maybe they have irreconcilable goals or technical views, or differing opinions on what belongs where."
The complaint has not been that they are bad people, it's that they are incompetent. This seems to confirm that some of the people involved are indeed incompetent.
This seems way more cut and dry than the author is portraying.
Kinda crazy that this was supposed to be a clean slate for Rust governance.
mustache_kimono|2 years ago
Isn't public controversy the exact atmosphere these blog posts and resignations, for lack of a better word -- drama, is meant to foment?
FTR I think Prime is just as wrong about this as anyone. The real issue was the issue re: trademark, etc. The real issue here is a failure of leadership. When you're in leadership and someone does something bad, why resign? Why not request an apology? When it's not given, why not build support for an apology? When an apology is again not forthcoming, you can publicly resign, but when you do, maybe some others will too, and you can say "10 of us signed a letter requesting an apology, including 3 members of his/her own team, and it was refused"?
Some technical people are unsurprisingly bad at leadership duties, and sometimes tactless, because these are difficult things, and we need to stop pretending they aren't.
There is no quick fix, but someone needs to do something other than just resign, because it's not leadership, and so far it's proven to do very little other than create more drama.
> It’s really more like those 4 or 5 persons. And it’s not like they’re really bad people, it’s more like they tend to… use back channels rather than follow process? Or they have too many responsibilities, and are unable to fulfill all of them properly? Or maybe they don’t listen enough?
If it's 4-5 people, it sounds more like there is a cultural problem that needs to be fixed, and if I were to guess that cultural problem is -- there perhaps need to be soft-technical PM-like, senior statesmen tracks. There needs to be someone not involved in the day to day who can listen, help settle disputes, smooth things over, and direct/focus teams, because it doesn't sound like these technical people are acting like leaders. And jerky behavior should have consequences.
flumpcakes|2 years ago
euiq|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
denvercoder904|2 years ago
jeremyjh|2 years ago
adamrezich|2 years ago
who actually perceives this situation this way? why would anyone perceive this situation this way, by default? this statement is needlessly inflammatory to a ridiculous degree—why would anyone assume overt anti-black bigotry as being the cause for any decision in any professional circle, in this year of our Lord Twenty Twenty-Three? why pour fuel on the fire like this?
this is yet another major red flag that indicates that I should stay far away from this "community"—there's clearly motivations and frames of thought at play here that don't mirror my perception of the real world in a very concerning way.
ra1231963|2 years ago
I personally listened to paid guest lecturers tell me all white people are racist, and those who deny it are proving their racism. In my workplace.
People are brainwashed to believe and see this stuff at this point, and there is an industry monetizing it.
If the only tool you have is a hammer…
_-____-_|2 years ago
ibejoeb|2 years ago
gwd|2 years ago
* Someone was invited to give a keynote; this was voted on at some point
* After the invitation was made and everything was done, some concerns were raised about the content of the talk -- apparently about whether the keynote slot would be seen as an endorsement of the technical contents by the Rust leadership.
* Someone in Rust leadership unilaterally asked for the talk to be downgraded from a keynote to a "normal talk", without telling anyone else or calling for another vote
* The invited speaker, recognizing something political going on, decided to "not play the game" and decided not to speak at all.
* One of the people who voted to invite said speaker to give a keynote, but never heard about the request to "downgrade", decided to resign.
As someone who is also involved in an open-source project with procedures and bylaws and such -- it seems like part of the issue has been certain people in the Rust leadership not being conscientious about following the process. I do believe that back-channel communication and coordination is necessary in real life. However, I also believe that confidence in the process itself is important. Having determined that something was necessary to be done, the person in question should have raised an official vote (perhaps talking to people individually beforehand); and having broken official procedures, that person should at very least apologize publicly for doing so, and perhaps be removed from a leadership role (at least for some period of time, maybe a year).
The author of this piece says people were "trying to do the right thing"; I mean, sure, we're all trying to do the right thing -- but when you screw up, you need to own it.
cookieperson|2 years ago
alex_lav|2 years ago
I'm not sure what the solution is, or if there is one, but the prospect of forking a major project and being met with positivity seems to be pretty unproven.
shri_krishna|2 years ago
It is ridiculous that ThePrimeagen has been called out (without whom I wouldn't have taken interest in learning Rust). He has been an avid supporter of Rust until the trademark fiasco broke out. No where did he "rile up the masses" or "added fuel to the fire". The trademark draft was really bad. End of story.
> Except, it’s never just that one person, you know? Otherwise I could burn myself by outing them, and do the whole community a favor. It’s really more like those 4 or 5 persons.
This is why I find it hypocritical. In the entire document there is no mention of even one person (or these group of insiders) who are creating these issues in the community. However, the one outsider who has been vocally supporting Rust (even made an entire Rust course on Frontend Masters) is being targeted.
Should tell you everything there is to tell about how the community has devolved.
mort96|2 years ago
And in the absence of a democratic process for decision-making, the only recourse we have, as people who depend on the projects governed by these groups, is to shout loudly enough to be noticed. If "throwing fuel at the fire" is what's needed to get enough people to engage to stop a really bad policy from going through, it's the right thing to do.
fb03|2 years ago
phendrenad2|2 years ago
dashtiarian|2 years ago
I've seen Taliban media with slightly more integrity than rust leadership.
paddw|2 years ago
Python is the main example I can think of after graduating from governance via BDFL, but is there any other new language which has achieved the same level of popularity as Rust?
So far, most of the drama seems to have been tangential to actual language features, so they at least deserve some credit for keeping technical aspects of development mostly on track.
npn|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
FrankWilhoit|2 years ago
The original sin of C was to release an informal [under]specification. Kernighan and Ritchie failed, catastrophically, to foresee the phenomenon of management pressure to release/productionize software written by people who only half-knew the language. K&R C (or each of its de facto, platform-bound reference implementations) was at least simple enough to learn. None of its successors have been. Verifiable or maintainable software cannot be written in any language that is too complex to understand (or that is in any way underspecified). Verifiable or maintainable software cannot be written in any language that its developer has only half learned. And software that is not both verifiable and maintainable is worse than no software at all.
pdimitar|2 years ago
Start naming and shaming people, let the internet have its field day and let's all go home. We all know people will reconverge at one point anyway. We all also know that nobody will get harmed regardless of all the drama.
I expect much more from adult people. Go drink some tea and have a 3-hour walk with your dog or partner or a friend, deliberately don't touch the computer for 24h and let's see how differently you'll react.
Also, injecting identity politics in a programming language foundation has been a mistake from the get go. Sounds like opportunism.
My code of conduct would be "don't be an a-hole no matter what race or sexual orientation somebody has -- and anyone being a d-bag will get shown the door, no exceptions". That's plenty enough and most people out there have enough common sense to know what you mean when you say it.
Also can we recognize that forks of popular programming languages NEVER truly take off.
So yeah, take a few deep breaths, disengage for a while and you might be surprised of the different thoughts that come to you after.
Let's tone down the drama already, this already became super embarrassing for all parties.
bhelkey|2 years ago
It's easy to say this when one is not the target. I imagine it would be difficult to ignore doxing, death threats, swatting, and/or harassing of family and friends.
serial_dev|2 years ago
Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago (which was also not the first Rust Drama), every community member - from speakers to organizers and regular language users - is confused, frustrated, feeling unappreciated with very slow official response and clarification.
I don't want witch hunting, I understand some of the people involved are volunteers, but if there is a drama every month, someone is doing something wrong and all we see from the outside is that someone acts shady and there is no consequences.
I'm not saying they are evil people, I don't hate anyone, I just think that they should do something else with their precious volunteer time.
It's not a witch hunt to show someone the door.
Ygg2|2 years ago
I think those are different. Rust trademark policy is more a case of miscommunication, while this seems more deliberate.
Rust Foundation iirc made a draft statement but rather than saying "We'll take community feedback into consideration" went with a much more vague "We'll might take this into consideration". At least that's my impressions.
It was fairly bad trademark policy forbidding crates from using rust and cargo. `cargo x` 99% of the time was some cargo plugin.
lost_tourist|2 years ago
nmarkn|2 years ago
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235124.html
The Rust situation seems to be instance the woke purging each other, Soviet style.
dralley|2 years ago
His cancellation has as much to do with pissing off so many of the people around him as anything else.
rch|2 years ago
Is there a concise roadmap that's easy to share?
cookieperson|2 years ago
hurril|2 years ago
Come back tomorrow. Nothing has happened. Please!
mkl95|2 years ago
ltbarcly3|2 years ago
Don't post a bunch of emotional, vague, unclear semi-accusations against people you won't even name. This is just adding to a bunch of drama with no possibility of any positive outcome.
quantum_state|2 years ago
skilled|2 years ago
I totally understand that perhaps all of this is not that big of a deal at all considering that sites like Hacker News puts tens of thousands of eyeballs on you in a split second. But if there's something I've learned from these very sites is that Rust is a respected language and these kind of fallouts reek of issues that have nothing to do with the language itself but the people that are supposedly in positions of power.
rvz|2 years ago
I had very high hopes on Rust, but it seems that they have to find another tiny first world issue to complain about and magnify it into a giant nothing.
Admittedly, this whole saga is more entertaining than the average pantomime but even that has its limits of banana slip-ups. There is a time where this 'entertainment' just turns into pure incompetence of this so-called community and its governance, which becomes very boring blazingly fast.
Hamuko|2 years ago
As a casual Rust user, the message that I get from this is that I should not spend time with the Rust community.
vilunov|2 years ago
dralley|2 years ago
jhatemyjob|2 years ago
Kye|2 years ago
New languages will inevitably adopt the means of communication they grew up in. That's blogs and gists and tweets.
unethical_ban|2 years ago
I haven't heard anyone suggest that actual development of the named languages has suffered due to drama.
shri_krishna|2 years ago
cultofmetatron|2 years ago
jstx1|2 years ago
all2well|2 years ago
1270018080|2 years ago
kristoff_it|2 years ago
Nobody wants to name the one guy who Secret Hitler'd the keynote, but man let's name call a streamer unaffiliated with the project as soon as we can because he read the original blog post on stream and said 'this is bad'.
jumpyjumps|2 years ago
hitekker|2 years ago
Out of all the things that could own a person and ruin their judgement, a toxic programming language committee ought to rank at the bottom.
zibarn|2 years ago
sampo|2 years ago
Patrickmi|2 years ago
deadletters|2 years ago
That voice in your head is you wanting to do the right thing.
late2part|2 years ago
adelarsq|2 years ago
Now working with Rust I have the same feelings as working with Java...
FranksTV|2 years ago
The document that they circulated was clearly a bunch of boilerplate. They assumed (wrongly) that the wider audience would have the same understanding and view of it that they did: that it was an early draft, subject to change. But the internet is not capable of such nuance.
lucasfcosta|2 years ago
Although I think this saga is a bit too dramatic, maybe that's why Rust is such a great language: people care a lot.
xdennis|2 years ago
maccard|2 years ago
That's my best attempt
tibbydudeza|2 years ago
Thank god we have a benevolent dictator for Linux and supporting actors (long may they live), really can't imagine the mess Linux it would have become if we had a committee.
rowanG077|2 years ago
fasterthanlime|2 years ago
Why wouldn’t you generously assumed this is exactly what JT has done? Because from what I know, that’s exactly what JT has done.
fds98324jhk|2 years ago
In Sebastian, FL, former public officials have been convicted and sentenced to incarceration time for doing this.
h2odragon|2 years ago
Call it "Dust". Mascot could be a crab louse.
kagevf|2 years ago
shadowbanevader|2 years ago
badrabbit|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
phendrenad2|2 years ago
Keyframe|2 years ago
carpet_wheel|2 years ago
sacnoradhq|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
zackees|2 years ago
[deleted]
jokerr1212|2 years ago
[deleted]
revskill|2 years ago
[deleted]
nomdep|2 years ago
proto_lambda|2 years ago
The wording "real woman" however immediately smells like an attempt to exclude trans women, of whom there are quite a few in the Rust community - even if that wasn't your intention at all, it might explain at least some of the downvotes though.
reneberlin|2 years ago
[deleted]