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

611–620 of 912 posts

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#611

Post by the_only_law »

chubot wrote: post #378
stackedinserter wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples? EDIT: it's remarkable that there's none, aside of "someone said something"

Rich Hickey specifically said that some Lisp groups were extraordinarily toxic, and it's something he wanted to avoid in Clojure. (I think it was in his HOPL talk). Also, I would say that help-bash@ and the bash IRC channel are pretty toxic. By "toxic" I mean that there's just a general culture of negativity, insults, hazing, and assuming the worst. There's definitely a thing where computer nerds try to one-up each o…

> Rich Hickey specifically said that some Lisp groups were extraordinarily toxic

This is an interesting topic I try to stay away from here, for obvious reasons, but so many lisp communities I’ve seen seem to form around these cult of personalities or have the most, err.. eccentric members. More so than any language I’ve seen. People like to joke about Haskell programmers being cult like, but I’ve been down some really wild rabbit holes with lisp.

Ironically I recall some allegations against Hickey a while back that if true would land him in that category.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#612

Post by jrockway »

Ticklee wrote: post #273
medeshago wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. What if a contributor is harassing another team member? What if he/she is being openly racist/sexist/etc.?

In my eyes someone is allowed to be as hateful as they want as long as they contribute good code.

What if the hate convinces 10 other people to stop contributing? You can still make a net-negative contribution even if you contribute something.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#613

Post by bluGill »

b3morales wrote: post #511
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…

You're right, it's walking a tightrope. But they do put this at the end (on the Reddit post[0], not GitHub): > we wish to ... focus on Constructive Criticism: how to improve the state of things, moving forward. > There are many potential topics that are worth exploring: > What should the Rust Governance look like? > How should the Rust Moderation Team be structured? What should be its responsibilities? > How can we e…

I think the people who can fix this - the core team - know what is going on. The ball is in their court.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#614

Post by nabakin »

GrayShade wrote: post #510
Zababa wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did see it, however it seems to be just speculation about what is happening. I don't want to base all my opinion on that. Some of these are rather heavy accusations, like the nepotism between Steve Klabnik and Ashley Williams, or that Steve Klabnik smeared Amazon because they didn't give Ashley Williams a job. I don't want to give them weight when the only source seems to be a pseudonymous post.

The poster there actually worked on the Rust project and did more than Ashley Williams, at least on the technical side. I even noticed their "absence" (or lower involvement) earlier this year and was wondering if they're okay. As for Steve's rant [1], it was weirdly guided against the "Rustacean principles" (which are totally harmless [2]), but happened right after Ashley's interim director contract was not extended.…

> Actually, on the HN post back then, Steve complained more about how Amazon didn't give her the job, than anything else.

Where did Steve mention Ashley not getting a job at Amazon? I remember reading through that thread but I don't remember Steve mentioning that. Today is the first I'm hearing of it.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#615

Post by mumblemumble »

cormacrelf wrote: post #340
couchand wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't send you a personal e-mail. They made a PR changing their team status to "alumni" and included the requisite justification in the PR message.

That doesn't mean it does not affect anyone outside leadership. It's government, they make decisions that affect participants. There's no such thing as a completely 'inside baseball' issue in government, unless you aren't a citizen. If you don't use Rust at all, you are free to feel like you do not need to think about solutions.

I would argue that it's governance, not government.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#616

Post by cyber_kinetist »

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…

But the mod team who resigned were precisely the ones behind moderating those Reddit/Discourse threads though. So I don't think there was animosity between the two teams from the start, but rather that tensions grew over the years until it became unmanageable.

My interpretation is that the drama happening around the core team (like the things you've mentioned) gets increasingly overwhelming for the mod team to handle, leading to complaints against the core team for causing such drama (which they do not have the sufficient resources nor actual power to handle). This further escalates and devolves into a worse relationship between the two, leading to the resignation.

From the thread on /r/rust one of the mods (different from the Rust's mods) talked about the relationship between the Core and the Mod team:

    Bans. We do not directly enforce bans, instead we ask Core to enforce them for us, and Core will double-check our work (though without access to the case, unless complainants are OK with that) -- essentially ensuring that we've done our due diligence, given a fair chance to the person, and that we're following the "escalation" procedure.
    Bans (bis). Core may enforce bans by themselves, then let us know.
    Involvement. When a Core Team Member is involved in a complaint, or a difficult relationship, we play our mediator/arbitrator role, stepping in and attempting to figure out the bottom of the issue and resolve it peacefully -- much like we do with any other Rust Team Member, really.
This is maybe a workable agreement if the Core and the Mod team went along well, but currently it seems like that's not the case. The last clause (Involvement) basically tells that "we really don't want the two teams to fight, and things should be resolved with common sense". Now that this is way out of the window, perhaps it would be a good time for the Rust contributors to reevaluate their team structure.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#617

Post by the_only_law »

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #517
chubot wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rich Hickey specifically said that some Lisp groups were extraordinarily toxic, and it's something he wanted to avoid in Clojure. (I think it was in his HOPL talk). Also, I would say that help-bash@ and the bash IRC channel are pretty toxic. By "toxic" I mean that there's just a general culture of negativity, insults, hazing, and assuming the worst. There's definitely a thing where computer nerds try to one-up each o…

> Honestly it's funny to me that people think HN is toxic, because it's not even close to those forums in my mind. (well maybe that's because I almost never read the politics threads on HN, but still) I strongly agree. I was reading the archive of an early infosec group the other day, the culture was extremely hostile. 70% of the posts were insightful technical discussions, the remaining 30% was full of personal atta…

Infosec seems to have its share of angry people in general. One notable blog you’ll see on here from time to time generally has informative or moderate content, but the comments always seem to be a bunch of pointless shouting at things not really related to the post.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#619

Post by thegrimmest »

eropple wrote: post #604
thegrimmest wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People make themselves angry, people choose to take offense. The reasonable thing to do is not allow yourself to be provoked to upset or anger by someone else's communication. People you disagree with are easy to ignore, even if you find their opinions loathsome.

"Just ignore people seeking to harm you specifically and severally" has historically been poor practice. And it's almost always advocated by people who have the upper hand in their own exchanges. Which is fascinating, isn't it?

We have a system of law and justice that is designed to prevent people actually visiting harm on eachother. We should draw the (very clear and very sharp) line at doing harmful things, and allow people to say whatever they want.

The alternative we're seeing is an ever-expanding, ever-blurring definition of what is policed as "offensive", stifling innovation and fostering division.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#620

Post by salawat »

nvrspyx wrote: post #110
LanceH wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And without any details at all, it sounds like some people want to bend others to a code of conduct that they never agreed to.

They agreed to the code of conduct by agreeing to be members. Also, regardless of the lack of details, they clearly want the core team to be held to the same standards as every other Rust team.

Just because I put a brick through your window with template EULA language stating you accept and hereby authorize me to have hurled the brick through your window and that you, the recipient, now indemnify me, the thrower from any damages caused in the process of the message on said brick making it's way to you for recipient, does not mean you can go around chucking bricks through folks' windows. Despite what the tech sector really, really, REALLY hopes people never become irritated enough to actually bother to read up and hold them accountable to.

Meeting of the minds, people. It means something damnit. Just because a bunch of you shoved some boilerplate in the repo doesn't make it binding, and the fact you did, like it or not, alienates a bunch of people who would otherwise be more than happy to extend a helping hand if the extent of the relationship was only the proposed contribution.

t. someone very selective and wary of contractual language when they can afford to be

Post reply on HN