451–460 of 912 posts
I've invested in Rust and don't regret it so far. I love the language and the tooling.
However, I'm not sure if I'd choose Rust again.
Those politics are really disturbing, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28515306.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a resignation, not a prosecution. Edit: If it helps, imagine a time you quit your job. Did you provide a datestamped list of incidents that lead to your decision to quit? Or were you, by chance, slightly more vague and provide something along the lines of: "The culture/fit/hours/goals/growth do not align with mine so I am resigning."?
By the public nature of it, it's a bit of a persecution.
What I read does not seem to fit this definition, but maybe to others it does.
Programming Language authors love to formalize everything , but did Rust really need all of these rules and moderators to begin with?
Absolutely, yes. A growing community needs healthy management in order to avoid reputational damage to the core language. There's no shortage of guidance to "stay away from X tech because the community is toxic and non-serious"
without a mod team, you will still boot trolls or resolve a dispute. I think it's better to have a judge who can step in and resolve a situation than proactive police when it comes to OSS moderation.
Why does a language need a “moderation team”? C++ seems to do fine without one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has a much worse effect though. Instead of damaging a single member they are now damaging the whole core team by leaving it unspecific, and they are damaging Rust as well.
It might be that the details would also damage the core team and The Rust community much worse with a flood of people leaving or people being targeted for harassment/abuse.
This is a real shame. From the early days of Rust (pre-2018?) I built up this mental picture of it having a considerably better run and governed community, with people putting time into thinking about how a community should work rather than it being something that's ignored because "we're here to write code and managing a product is a waste of time". I lost touch (the last video I watched which might be the one that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's written publicly, so by definition it is written for everyone.
No, not every public information is written for everyone. Just because arxiv papers are publically available does not mean that a posted string theory paper should be written for you so that you can understand it (or I for that matter).
Arxiv papers might not be written for me now, but if I got interested in a paper (and had time to spare, of course) I would probably have most of the content I need to at least grasp the general content of the paper.
Thanks for the example, it fits perfectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.
Yes, and this is the policy of many long-running and successful FOSS projects (e.g. kernel developers). Rust however wanted something different and attracted a lot of "snowflakes" because of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not dead.
No, but when you resign you are no longer in a position to influence anything. Resignation is an act of last resort, you throw yourself on your sword in the hope that someone notices and that's that. You can do it exactly once.
> In this message, we have avoided airing specific grievances beyond unaccountability. We've chosen to maintain discretion and confidentiality. We recommend that the broader Rust community and the future Mod Team exercise extreme skepticism of any statements by the Core Team (or members thereof) claiming to illuminate the situation. Isn't that a kind of scorched earth statement? I read it as "we will be discreet and…
I wouldn't say so it basically says:
Let's keep past thinks in the past.
Through it also implies there is at least one Person on the core Team which they are afraid will abuse their "Let's keep past thinks in the past." approach to twist the truth.