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

571–580 of 912 posts

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#571

Post by ignoramous »

rust-throwaway1 wrote: post #548

I'm inclined to believe the rust moderation team even though they haven't disclosed any specifics. The way the core team exercises absolute authority in spite of community complaints has always rubbed me the wrong way. They present a facade of caring while crushing dissent. I do not recognize most of the core team these days, but Steve Klabnik and Ashley Williams stand out as likely culprits. I have personally submit…

> They present a facade of caring while crushing dissent.

This is a rampant tactic on Wikipedia usually employed by experienced gatekeepers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CRUSH and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SQS

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#572

Post by unanswered »

rust-throwaway1 wrote: post #548

I'm inclined to believe the rust moderation team even though they haven't disclosed any specifics. The way the core team exercises absolute authority in spite of community complaints has always rubbed me the wrong way. They present a facade of caring while crushing dissent. I do not recognize most of the core team these days, but Steve Klabnik and Ashley Williams stand out as likely culprits. I have personally submit…

The problem with this theory is that the moderation team has been entirely supportive of Ms. 'Kill' so far, and actively works to silence dissent about her position in public Rust spaces. (Maybe not so much as the unofficial mods, but I personally was on the receiving end of llogiq's overreaction in /r/rust to any dissent.) I believe they would take her side in the dispute which Klabnik vaguebooked about a few months ago.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#573

Post by yeputons »

throwawaygh wrote: post #128
simion314 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But for some reason, the formalization of conduct enforcement stuff around OSS projects still feels weird, off-putting, and very "Corporate HR"-y to me. But if a community already approved such rules is it OK that those would not apply equally for all? Before joining a new community I always check and see if there is a lot of toxicity or just low effort contributions and I am avoiding those, it would suck to join a…

Maybe it will help to explicate what rubs me the wrong way about "corporate HR". The facade of process masking Machiavellian reality is what rubs me the wrong way. I'm always astounded by folks who don't understand that companies are feudal kingdoms and that all the stuff about processes and protecting people who are innocent/do the right thing is just hot air. And I've never been on the wrong side of HR, so this isn…

> "this company is someone else's property, you have no rights to that property, we do what we want, so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks unless you're ok leaving."

> so play nice and don't piss off the wrong folks

"Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation. I think having these at least somewhat codified is very helpful. Cultures differ a lot, and what may be considered "a useful, clear, concise and honest code review" in one is "blatant non-constructive shitstorm from an arrogant a-hole" in another.

However, such codification probably requires specific examples rather than "please be respectful to all people regardless of X, Y, Z" or "don't piss off people". For example, I really like how Recurse Center's "Social Rules" are described: https://web.archive.org/web/20211117232710/https://www.recur...

> Most of our social rules really boil down to "don't be a jerk" or "don't be annoying." Of course, almost nobody sets out to be a jerk or annoying, so telling people not to be jerks isn't a very productive strategy. That's why our social rules are designed to curtail specific behavior we've found to be destructive to a supportive, productive, and fun learning environment.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#574

Post by Angius »

ferdowsi wrote: post #48
randyrand wrote: post #32

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"

> A growing community needs healthy management

Like this person being the executive director? https://archive.fo/f10KK

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#575

Post by worik »

devmunchies wrote: post #453
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"

in my short experience in software (7 years), it almost feels like there is more drama when a CoC mod team is involved. 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.

Depends on your POV

My POV is one of privilege (I hate that word and concept, but it fits here). Being part of the majority most of the ways you can slice IT - except I am older but that one was a change!

In other fields I was made aware of what it is like to be part of other groups, and it can suck. I got married. My spouse took me on a tour playing "spot the detective". They got followed around shops in a way that never happens to me. When we stood together at a bar, they were served after me, every time.

A lot of people here know this from personal experience, a lot of people here it is academic reality, a lot of people here simply do not understand. OK. Believe me, it is real

I have been involved in groups that make efforts to embrace people from outside the main dominant (majority) slices (how ever you choose to slice it) and groups that do not. The former is much better.

Rust has truly benefited from it. Those in the comfy majority, it turns out, benefit too. I do.

Compare Rust and Swift (I use Swift professionally, Rust for fun) There is no comparison. Swift has so many corners that have not been rounded off. The ergonomics is mostly much worse (unwrap V ! is an exception). Memory management in Swift is almost non-existent, the threading model is appallingly bad. I could go on, but on one side is a vibrant community, on the other is a bunch of alphas, astroturf, and the weeds rolling through almost empty Apple forums.

The mod teams are a very important part of making the community a good place, making the community a good place is crucial for making the technology good.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#576

Post by JohnBooty »

intelfx wrote: post #535
JohnBooty wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't know the story, nor any of the events leading up to this point, but I am convinced that one side is handling it wrong!"

Ironically, that's exactly what the moderation team seems to insinuate with their "extreme skepticism" claim. "You don't know the story, we won't tell any of the events leading up to this point, but you better be sure that these people on the core team are wrong!"

I wholeheartedly agree that "don't trust XYZ, they'll probably lie, but I can't tell you any more about it" is... very non-ideal.

There are some situations in life where there just aren't any good choices. It's possible that this may have been one of them.

What would you do if you felt that you had to walk away from a bad situation on a public project, and had strong reason to believe that the other party would attempt to publicly misrepresent the situation?

You could remain silent, but we're talking about the court of public opinion here and we know silence is often interpreted as guilt, or at least irresponsibility. It would also allow the other party to continue creating this "bad situation" without, at the least, giving future moderators some warning. Likely, the mod team would have faced similar criticism had they simply walked away silently.

Presumably, the members of the mod team are interested in maintaining their own reputations and would like to continue working in this field.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#577

Post by bb010g »

throwaway2077 wrote: post #527
bb010g wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an extremely GamerGate-smelling list. Quotes are misinterpreted, overreacted to, and/or taken out of context. That list does not contain juicy details; it does contain a level of grime that I figured would mean it would be left in the past as a historical GamerGate artifact and not pulled up in the Rust community in 2021.

>overreacted to, and/or taken out of context. change the race and/or sex in those quotes

that's not how minorities and/or affirmitive action work?

thank you for your bold take, throwaway2077

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#578

Post by tmp_anon_22 »

dathinab wrote: post #495
donatj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re not going to publicly state your grievances, so publicly posting your resignation seems at best political and at worst slanderous. Either let the public in on the situation or don’t. Don’t badmouth someone and then refuse to explain why.

It's the best they can do for the rust community. Pointing out some specific things is hard as it's most likely not one specific thing but many small things plus some "that's enough" bigger thing(s) and because it likely has various negative effects including: -people focusing on that specific thing, instead of the general problem (unaccountability) -people overreacting, e.g. starting a witch hunt with serve negative…

Agreed. There was no good option - this was the least worst option they could come up with.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#579

Post by nabakin »

burntsushi wrote: post #561
dom96 wrote: post #207

> The Rust Moderation Team (Andre, Andrew and Matthieu) Is the Rust mod team really just 3 people? I'm really surprised to see this coming from Rust. I've viewed Rust's governance as one of the best amongst open source projects. Coincidentally we have very recently put together a mod team in Nim[1] that is significantly larger than just 3, it would be really great to hear more details so we can learn from this. 1 - h…

It was 4 people until very recently. But it was only 4 for a long time. It's inaugural size (of which I was a part) was bigger than that. People leave over time and it's hard to get new members. We acknowledged this in our statement. We suggested that the future mod team do a better job recruiting new members than we did.

Thanks for your contribution burntsushi. I'm sorry it has come to this.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#580

Post by Angius »

pjc50 wrote: post #55
scandox wrote: post #16

> 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…

It's the opposite: it's a "we refuse to drag this drama out into the public sphere" statement.

Drama has already been dragged out. Now people are left to speculate and accuse. This thing from 4 years ago has been dug up, for example: https://archive.fo/f10KK and I can see it being the basis of some of those speculations.
Post reply on HN