711–720 of 912 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Steve was saying that Amazon is responsible for not letting Ashley remain interim chair? I don't remember him saying that either.
I'm not sure (nor do I care) by what mechanism, but yes: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441662998007809 I also seem to have confused the executive director and chair positions. She was the ED.
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…
> If they outlined specific issues... I can't tell if a specific issue occurred, or if everyone is just assuming that there was an issue because the post is so vague. They seem to make it clear that their primary complaint was about the organizational structure: They wanted to have authority over the core team, but they weren't given authority over the core team.
That makes it very clear that they had some specific grievances beyond unaccountability, otherwise it wouldn't sense to say they've avoided airing them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think the case of Rust is a bit unique with heavy interest in the future of the language from powerful companies [0]. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513130
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.
I can understand this reasoning when it comes to personal insults. I understand it less when it comes to tolerating baiting, which takes time and attention from the original reason (work, fun, etc.) of the social space. Why is being offended by not being able to communicate unreasonable? I'm also interested in your take in the kind of communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation. I guess it's si…
> communication that's intended to falsely undermine your reputation
If a claim is false, that's the most damning thing that can be said about it. Whether it's "offensive" (or whether you're offended) or not is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’m glad to see them resign, and I hope open source can ultimately route around the unearned power grab that the “CoC” movement represents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might care to notice that the resignation was announced by Andrew Gallant—more commonly known as BurntSushi[1]—who is one of the most well-respected, talented, and prolific contributors in the wider Rust community. Amongst other things, they are the author of ripgrep[2], the regex[3] crate, and the byteorder[4] crate. They have multiple projects which are amongst the most-downloaded crates[5] in the Rust ecosyste…
As well as xsv and the csv crate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe is better that no single action is emphasized or a single person and focus on the actual problem, the fact that there might be a group that is above the laws/rules and possible solutions. Edit: I think if some action will be made public then everyone will focus on debating why that action was correct/incorrect , then a lot of mostly politics dirt will be thrown around etc.
> focus on the actual problem, the fact that there might be a group that is above the laws/rules and possible solutions I just find it hard to understand on how you are suppose to see if the group is above the rules or how you can find any possible solutions, when what is supposed to have exemplified the problem is kept in the dark.
Obviously there is a story behind this ("the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves"), but it's not entirely evident from the PR itself what actions led down to this happening. I guess somewhere a Core Team member broke the Code of Conduct but the deed went unpunished? I was expecting some references or links to where this actually happened, but couldn't find anything. Anyone know what ha…
One would assume that the Mod team would be the first to air something egregious. The fact that they aren’t tells me they don’t like the optics of the issue and they’d rather stay silent.
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…
> If they outlined specific issues... I can't tell if a specific issue occurred, or if everyone is just assuming that there was an issue because the post is so vague. They seem to make it clear that their primary complaint was about the organizational structure: They wanted to have authority over the core team, but they weren't given authority over the core team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.