Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rust Moderation Team Resigns

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 912 posts

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#551

Post by mlindner »

andrelaszlo wrote: post #540
mlindner wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ashley Williams is maybe one of the causes of this as she's on the core team and has said horrible CoC violating things in the past (but it was for a different CoC).

I know very little about the Rust community or who Ashley Williams is, but since what you're suggesting sounds pretty serious - perhaps you could be more specific? > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

https://archive.fo/f10KK There's some quotes.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#552

Post by ChuckMcM »

jacquesm wrote: post #342
loeg wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public shaming by respected community members is probably somewhat effective. However, they chose not to do that here. Without knowing more, I have to trust their judgment. But I recognize that it’s unsatisfying.

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.

I suspect that doing it this way puts pressure on the core team members who don't subscribe to the behaviors moderate the people on the core team who are problems. But one can never know.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#553

Post by kbenson »

unanswered wrote: post #215
asoneth wrote: post #101

Is there any good way to craft a message like this? If they outlined specific issues then it would invariably devolve into armchair quarterbacking of those issues rather than the the underlying question of what kinds of checks-and-balances should exist for the Core Team -- gossip, accusations, and political discussions are a lot more fun than debating governance structures. On the other hand, if no specific issues ar…

> Is there any good way to craft a message like this? "We are resigning and our reasons have been shared privately with X group. " But since the goal of the whole exercise is to generate publicity and drama, the above was an unacceptable approach and the approach actually taken was highly effective.

I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. If your remit is to deal with issues like this, but you find the structure is broken enough that you can't do what you see as your job, what do you do?

Going public may be against the point of the group, but it might also be the only way seen to fix the problem and address the problems that prevent your group from doing its job.

So you're left with the unenviable option of explicitly doing what your team is not supposed to do in order to try to fix the team so it can function in the future. The responsible thing to do at that point would be to resign, so someone else can come in and gain the benefits you fought for, and your prior breaking of the rules does not taint the team.

I think that's the charitable view. I don't know if it's correct, but I do think it's worth considering.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#554

Post by pdpi »

nrabulinski wrote: post #376
zozbot234 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're committing to sharing these reasons with other Rust Team members, though. Just not the broader dev community.

Then don’t make a whole big public announcement about it. As someone from the outside this just reads like a post specifically to generate drama and attention but not giving details as to direct it at anyone in particular.

Alternative: They step down without an announcement, get replaced, somebody pieces it together and posts it on HN or reddit or something, and now you have all the same drama from announcing it publicly, plus all the added drama from the "secret step down".

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#555

Post by ramchip »

swebs wrote: post #504
porker wrote: post #364

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…

This person? https://archive.fo/f10KK

This website always return a "could not reach server" error for me (in Japan). Is there another source?

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#556

Post by oscargrouch »

r053bud wrote: post #369

I feel like there is always drama or issues surrounding the governance of Rust. It has definitely made me wary to adopt it as a long-term language. Maybe I have recency bias or something.

I'm not sure what the real problem is, but we live in a economical system that have a tendency to hijack governance of things that are important to 'them' (whoever the contextual them are) and re-purpose it's goals and direction working as a effective power-grab strategy.

You can see this happening with browsers for instance, where the companies now are the ones who define the standards with things that are important to them, like DRM or showing ads, embellishing the pill with things nerds and hackers also like, where once this governance where in the hands of Tim-Berners-Lee et al.

And that's because we are talking about technologies that born more free of corporation oversight, which is the minority.. (Think Java first with Sun and now with Oracle for instance)

This Rust thing is just because powerful corporations are adopting it, and defining board members, so they can define more the direction of the platform and the technology.

For those corporations corrupt board members that know who owns them and what interests they should defend are more important than the personal character of that board member..

It's always like this and it will always be like this. Capitalism is a amoral system and it will turn everything it touch into its own image..

Until we don't stop and fix the root cause of the system that is corrupting everything that we value its like thinking you can stop a ocean wave by resisting it while on front of it.

Note: I'm not advocating to just destroying capitalism as a solution, but to acknowledge that this is actually systemic and happen all over and instead to try to fix the specific problem caused by it, we should get back some steps and try to fix the problem, which is systemic, for everything while preventing it from happening all over again in the future.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#557

Post by jacquesm »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #552
jacquesm wrote: post #342

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.

I suspect that doing it this way puts pressure on the core team members who don't subscribe to the behaviors moderate the people on the core team who are problems. But one can never know.

Yes, that's how I read it too. At a guess, if the threat to resign didn't change anything the resignation also won't change anything and strongly suggesting the core team can not be trusted not to lie is a very harsh move that has the power to destabilize the whole Rust experiment. Massively dumb move this.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#558

Post by swagonomixxx »

xtracto wrote: post #550
strunz wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have made fun of Linux having Linus as the dictator on top, but it seems like that model might be the best for long term project success...

Right, and Ruby has had Matz, Python had Guido and to a certain degree PHP had Rasmus. As soon as you have more than one captain in the ship, politics and drama seems unavoidable.

Agreed, a single point of authority is useful.

Although in this scenario, isn't code of conduct something much more "local" that the ringleader doesn't really need to step in every time to enforce?

CoC is just something I expect everybody to enforce when needed. Having a dedicated team to do that seems odd to me. I guess you still need someone to issue bans and to wield the ban hammer, but it _should_ happen infrequently that simply informing the violator of their violation should be enough (unless they're a troll and will continue violating, in which case they can be kicked).

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#559

Post by kbenson »

whatshisface wrote: post #520
phoe-krk wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then don’t make a whole big public announcement about it. I don't understand. How do you resign from a public project without resigning from that public project? If it is not about the resignation but about the message, do you think that a "we are resigning as a whole team that was made pbulic and we do not provide any public reason for that" would work any better?

They could have resigned without making a post about it. Is that a good idea? Maybe, it depends on the details we don't know.

And what, leave the Rust community not knowing that there's no CoC team because they've all resigned over something, but the community wasn't informed?

It's not like there's some membership card with paid dues. Their responsibility was to anyone that viewed themselves as part of the Rust community, and consumes anything to do with that community (whether or not they put anything into it).

Not informing all the people of that community because it appeases random public commenters would be a far worse failure of their duties than letting the general public gossip.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#560

Post by claytonjy »

quotemstr wrote: post #89
ferdowsi wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Counterexample: Linux, GCC, Python, and practically the entire free software ecosystem from before the current crazy for hall-monitory-y supervision from above. It is simply demonstrably, factually, clearly not true that a growing community needs the kind of structures that Rust imposed on itself. It really makes me sad that a certain kind of person these days sees some kind of censorious overlord as essential for th…

One of the biggest contributors to R's success over the past decade is folks having negative experiences with the Python community, particularly folks who are women, non-white, or come from non-CS background. The R community (and RStudio in particular) has worked hard to be much more inclusive and you can see this clearly reflected in the diversity of users and package authors.
Post reply on HN