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

631–640 of 912 posts

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#631

Post by FeepingCreature »

canaus wrote: post #601
FeepingCreature wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am completely serious. Curtis Yarvin is a bellwether - the sort of person that any group that starts excluding people for ideological disagreements, would probably exclude first precisely because his position is so problematic. So any group that accepts his technical contribution can obviously be trusted to tolerate any less-severe ideological disagreement. Conversely, any group that doesn't, especially when they h…

What a stupid argument. Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion . If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts. If not, your entire organiz…

> Call me crazy, but I believe that you don't have to actively champion and invite openly racist people to conferences to show that you tolerate difference of opinion.

Sure you don't have to, but if you do, it's a hell of a signal. (At any rate, Curtis Yarvin was invited for his semi-esoteric functional-based distributed operating platform, Urbit.)

> If you're protecting personnel, even after a number of others in your community have shown disagreement with the person's actions (and protections afterwards), just admit you agree with those thoughts.

Sorry, I don't. Of course, you'll believe that I do anyway, and that's fine. I do think it's a bit sad that you think that the only reason someone could want somebody to be included, is because they were your ideological compatriots.

In fact, the only reason I want anyone to be included in a conference is if they have contributions to the conference's topic.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#632

Post by unanswered »

zozbot234 wrote: post #598
unanswered wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Rust Moderation Team is not the same as the r/rust "mods". Yes, this is confusing.

They aren't the same, but llogiq is both. (Now just an /r/rust mod.)

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#633

Post by na85 »

Can someone explain why the development of a computer programming language needs "mod teams" and other stuff?

I don't use Rust; does Rust aspire to also be a social network or something?

It seems to me, from my outsider's perspective, that Rust has a lot of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. The "teams" directory [0] has two pages worth of files, which I assume are sub-team membership lists? Good grief.

[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/team/tree/master/teams

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#634

Post by PragmaticPulp »

iamed2 wrote: post #84

There are two statements here regarding things that have happened: > the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves > we have been unable to enforce the Rust Code of Conduct to the standards the community expects of us and to the standards we hold ourselves to It's possible that there were CoC violations that they were not able to moderate, that the actions available to them were limited (e.g…

> It's possible that there were CoC violations that they were not able to moderate, that the actions available to them were limited (e.g., they would have initiated a ban but they were not able to ban a core team member), that a core team member intervened to prevent effective moderation, or that the core team prevented the mod team from being able to access official core team channels in order to moderate.

It's not clear to me that they're claiming a violation occurred.

The wording is vague, but one interpretation is that they simply wanted more control over the core team but the core team didn't want it structured that way, so the mod team resigned.

IMO, it would be strange to make a moderation team the highest authority in an organizational structure. I don't really agree with their demand to be the ultimate authority over everyone.

Violation or not, I wish they could have come to an agreement without throwing ambiguous accusations out into public as they quit. Between this and the "I refuse to let Amazon define Rust" post a few months ago we're getting a lot of drama with few, if any, details. There's a lot of "just trust me, but don't listen to what anyone else says about the situation" in this post.

Their closing statement asking everyone to not trust anything the core team says makes this feel particularly petty:

> 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.

I really hope that drama like this doesn't become one of the defining features of the Rust community.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#635

Post by colejohnson66 »

whatshisface wrote: post #608
kbenson wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> leave the Rust community not knowing that there's no CoC team They did have the option of finding replacements before leaving.

Employees have no duty to find replacements for their employer. There's especially no moral duty if your bosses are being jerks. I'd say that logic applies to this situation as well.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#636

Post by throwawaygh »

yeputons wrote: post #573
throwawaygh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Play nice", "don't piss off" and "the wrong folks" are open to interpretation.

Yup. It's sometimes hard to figure out how power flows and the social preferences of the people who modulate those flows. Getting along in large orgs is a skill that requires both experience and intentional work.

The problem is that people rarely run into trouble due to abrasiveness among peers, so examples like the Recurse center can be helpful but are woefully incomplete as a guide to corporate politics.

Getting along while being ambitious is anything but easy. There are no rules.

At the end of the day, "social skills" and "social intelligence" are just that -- forms of skill and intelligence. "Getting Along" is always a learned behavior, albiet does come more naturally to some than others, and is far easier said than done.

These skills are often learned pretty early on in life. It's one of the reasons I encourage folks who are considering home-schooling to at least send their kids to one year of high school.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#637

Post by robocat »

staticassertion wrote: post #609
adrianmsmith wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people putting a lot of thought into how to control/manage a community might be more of a negative sign than a positive one. A counterexample is Hacker News itself. We all like Hacker News (presumably, otherwise we wouldn't be here) and it wouldn't be what it is without the intentions of the original creator and the current moderation team.

> We all like Hacker News That can't be true, right? Everyone shits so hard on HN all the time. Personally I only post here because it's "the place" for people in my field, but HN has given me a more negative view of my field than positive.

> Everyone shits so hard on HN all the time.

Do they? Or is it just some minority of shit stirrers? Or is it that HN is more likely to have people that can healthily laugh at themselves - a la Monty Python? I mean you can love HN and n-gate.com at the same time right?

Back on topic: The very public “we quit” message seems like a very clear message to try and effect change for a cause they deeply care about.

I presume the mod team had multiple other options on how to deal with the core issue. For example, they could have internally suggested a quiet rollover to a new mod team over a few months. Say modelled on how CEO leadership is changed, avoiding public drama, when a CEO is rolled by their board.

Deciding on a very public option just causes all the drama to play out with every Internet and Hackernews (including me) adding their own spit into the mix.

Edit: added colour.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#638

Post by mistrial9 »

medeshago wrote: post #169
tapirl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kick off? Is this necessary for an open source non-profit project?

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

what IF a person in a responsibility position is openly accused of being XYZ-phobic by attention-seeking, emotionally unstable netizens?

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#639

Post by Angius »

pzo wrote: post #625
Angius wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the archived version: https://archive.fo/f10KK

link doesn't work - return 403 Forbidden

Weird, it does work for me... Perhaps try other snapshots? https://archive.fo/https://www.reddit.com/r/node/comments/6w...

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#640

Post by throwawaygh »

bluGill wrote: post #628
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of open source projects do not create their own open source license- most of them choose from a relatively small selection of widely used licenses (GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache, etc.). Why then do so many project choose to roll their own CoC? I'd expect that there would also be a relatively small handful of widely used CoCs to choose from, and a project could pick based on their projects' needs.

I'm on a tiny project without a CoC because I don't know how to enforce it if we had one. Enforce means it needs to apply to me, and also whoever enforces it needs to be active to watch for issues. I wish KDE/Gnome/other big project would just do a CoC as a service for tiny projects. For the most part the CoC should be standard, and a few experts to enforce it would be better than random enforcement. (note I have no…

> For the most part the CoC should be standard, and a few experts to enforce it would be better than random enforcement.

I've heard that large-scale enforcement of CoC is super easy and that all the big social media companies have it figured out ;-)

Post reply on HN