I think it's ridiculous a programming language needs a whole team to make sure people are being nice anyway.
[deleted]
Rust Moderation Team Resigns
671–680 of 912 posts
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yo…
No, I think someone should be *excluded* from talking at a conference because they literally write Eugenics theory, regardless of the brackets, semicolons and spaces they write in a text editor.
It sounds like we just have a difference in moral standards.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#673Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just disagree that standing in his presence is a matter of safety for anyone. It's possible to hold abhorrent views and still be a useful contributor.
It is hyperbole Not evil, an exaggeration but still: would you want to be in the presence of some body so bigoted? Who thought you inferior because because because?
To me, if they can keep it to themselves, they can believe whatever they want. Up to and including that I shouldn't have been born, though I may draw a line at believing I should be killed, depending on how mentally stable I believe them to be.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#674Some interesting context from one of the resigning mod team members: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/qzme1z/moderation_tea...
Makes me wonder if it's a "who's watching the watchers" situation.
Once, in my fraternity, someone was unhappy with something. (Politics, basically.) They proposed an entirely new board to watch the existing elected executive council. Basically all of the brotherhood would have been involved in some form of administration and oversight.
At this point, one of our more politically knowledgeable brothers laughed, and said, "But who's watching the watchers." The movement quickly failed.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#675Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Yeah, they definitely do, or at least virtually everyone I know feels that HN is a place mostly to go to laugh at the terrible opinions or, much less frequently, a good comment.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#676Earlier quoted context omitted.
With most OSS projects nowadays I don't think you have to use a mailing list or anything that would have an MOTD in order to contribute. Contributions nowadays are often done entirely through the repository, so it makes sense to put in them the things that people contemplating contribution should be cognizant of. Repositories for most projects are more project repositories than mere code repositories.
> Repositories for most projects are more project repositories than mere code repositories. Indeed, but for some reason it still feels odd. I've acknowledged I'm getting old, right? ;-) Also, there is some rational justification to my feeling. It used to be that you might kick-ban someone from a channel or /dev/null their mailing list contributions. But if they made a technically meritorious merge request via SCM the…
This is a super mature, nuanced post so thanks for that.
> It used to be that you might kick-ban someone from a channel or /dev/null their mailing list contributions. But if they made a technically meritorious merge request via SCM the contribution would still get due consideration. Even assholes can be good programmers, after all. That always felt healthy & mature to me. Finding a way to protect the masses from assholes without exiling the asshole always felt like a sign of good community stewardship. It's something I strived to do in communities I moderated.
To some extent I think this is because GitHub doesn't offer the same tools that running your own mailing list would. A mailing list can do what you said, /dev/null ML contributions while still letting patches through. That's not something you can do easily in GitHub.
> I guess if an OSS project is just a way for companies to commodify complements and for contributors to get jobs, then treating it like a Fortune 500 all-hands makes sense.
Rust has a pretty friendly community (from what I've encountered at least), but a lot of its core stakeholders do have a lot of corporate obligations, and many of them Rust related. It makes sense to me that the Rust community would be more interested in treating interaction with Rust like a corporate project instead of a hobby club given that many of them are hacking on Rust for their actual job.
> I wonder how much of the conflict around CoCs boils down to this split in people's perception of what OSS projects are.
Github is part of it, but in general I think a lot of today's OSS projects don't have a strict separation of "community" and "code" in the way that projects in the past used to. Part of that is modern tools (Git forges like Gitea, sr.ht, etc) don't really enforce that separation, and that older tools like mailing lists are cumbersome enough to maintain that newer developers don't actually explore using them very often.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#677This 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
[deleted]
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
They did not extend her (interim) contract as Foundation chair. It's not "she didn't get a job", but rather "she didn't get the job she wanted".
So Steve was saying that Amazon is responsible for not letting Ashley remain interim chair? I don't remember him saying that either.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
And not even just contributors. Users of your project might not want to interact with your team. If I encounter a bug and want to create an issue, but I either see racism within communication, or just overall negativity in comments from members, why would I continue with your project? I could just as easily be subjected to it.
> why would I continue with your project Because I have important stuff in my life that depends on it; business, workflows at work, IT infrastructure, ...
If it's that important to you, it's likely in a professional setting, isn't it? I'd say most CoCs are perfectly reasonable, and you usually have to go out of your way to cross them in a professional software development environment.
Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns
#680Is 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…
> You can't diagnose and find a remedy for a problem that you can't even see
The problem seems clear to me when I read the Github pull request, they can't enforce their moderation over the Core team. The remedy they suggest is for the community to decide how the moderation team should enforce moderation on the Core team (or if they should at all).
What would talking about the issue give more? It will just polarize people and push toward a specific solution for that specific issue, while the actual issue is over being able to moderate.