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

801–810 of 912 posts

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#801

Post by zionic »

Sharlin wrote: post #585
devmunchies wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would think more likely all the drama and more is still there without a CoC or a team to enforce it, it’s just hush-hushed and allowed to fester. The world is chock full of examples of communities quietly condoning horribly toxic and outright criminal deeds and abuses, often toward less privileged people, that have continued for decades because ignoring, suppressing and silencing is easier than the alternative.

Strong disagree. The CoC, by design, creates more conflict than it resolves.

You have now painted a target on your project, every activist that finds your CoC in non-compliance now has:

1) a means to proposition your submission

2) a cudgel to bang you with should you reject #1

A far saner solution is to ban CoC and those who request a CoC. The CoC then becomes “don’t request a CoC”. Tolerance paradox in action.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#802

Post by zionic »

OOPMan wrote: post #737
cjaybo wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the kernel is one of the most successful OSS projects of all time. I'm not sure it makes your point very well.

Turns out asshole can make good software! It's almost as though software development skills aren't correlated with social skills...

Sounds like an argument to keep the feels police out of software dev.

We have significant, documented evidence of assholes producing world changing software.

We can’t do the same for the inverse personality type, can we?

I’d rather have amazing open source free software than the validation of a blue check mark.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#803

Post by zionic »

tharne wrote: post #562
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"

On average I've found projects with explicit CoC's to be more toxic than those projects without Coc's.

We’re almost there, I’ve blacklisted all OSS with CoC from our products/services.

We’re down to the last 2, in house rewrites have replaced the rest with superior performing alternatives.

I would normally support pushing our clean sheet rewrites MIT, but I need a license that prohibits the addition of CoC in all derivative/downstream/forks.

In the mean time I’ll settle for a competitive advantage.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#804

Post by blindmute »

I'm fine with this. Let the people work. Moderators rage quitting because they don't have ultimate power over everyone in the organization is probably indicative of an organization better off without them. If the problem was actually egregious, the people in charge of the core team would have allowed the enforcement. A resignation strongly implies that no one in power was on their side.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#805

Post by blindmute »

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"

> avoid reputational damage

In less censored circles, Rust has THE worst reputation of any programming language purely because of this kind of management. The entire reputation of Rust is "that language made by insane leftists... with some memory safety or something". I've never seen any language community with a worse reputation, including JS.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#806

Post by blindmute »

zionic wrote: post #803
tharne wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On average I've found projects with explicit CoC's to be more toxic than those projects without Coc's.

We’re almost there, I’ve blacklisted all OSS with CoC from our products/services. We’re down to the last 2, in house rewrites have replaced the rest with superior performing alternatives. I would normally support pushing our clean sheet rewrites MIT, but I need a license that prohibits the addition of CoC in all derivative/downstream/forks. In the mean time I’ll settle for a competitive advantage.

You might find this entertaining

https://github.com/domgetter/NCoC

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#807

Post by BoorishBears »

tialaramex wrote: post #742
BoorishBears wrote: post #694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MISRA goes further than Rust can and still be a widely useful language. You'd need to define a very specific subset of Rust to approach its level of regulation and the additional layers added by ISO standards where it's often used

Do you have some examples of MISRA rules you think would need "a very specific subset of Rust" rather than for example, #![forbid(unused)] to obey MISRA's rejection of unused stuff ? A lot of MISRA is concerned with defects in C - or in its standard library and the usual C idiom - that simply aren't present in Rust and so need zero work to eliminate. For example MISRA forbids trigraphs. Rust of course doesn't have tr…

I think you're understimating how far MISRA goes.

Rules about identifiers for example, no shadowing, explicit typing only, no unused declarations etc.

Rust might get the big stuff but MISRA is adhered to exactly in contexts where things that would be "nitpicky" or over-opinionated for a general use language improve safety. Pure Rust would never be a replacement for that without additional static analysis.

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#808

Post by blindmute »

whimsicalism wrote: post #206
dralley wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...I think many people would disagree with you about Linux. And perhaps GCC as well.

Yeah it's comical because Linux has so obviously driven a lot of people away from kernel development. Tech is male-skewed, and OSS more so, but Linux kernel dev is even then still at the far end of the gender disparity spectrum.

Are you aware of how many people have been driven away from Rust because of their community? I've never seen people talking about avoiding Linux even 1/10th as much as they talk about avoiding Rust. It's entirely due to the culture; developers don't like a culture in which a programming language needs a multi-member moderation team (who resigns because they can't punish people 100% of the time).

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#809

Post by School-Cotton »

zionic wrote: post #803
tharne wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On average I've found projects with explicit CoC's to be more toxic than those projects without Coc's.

We’re almost there, I’ve blacklisted all OSS with CoC from our products/services. We’re down to the last 2, in house rewrites have replaced the rest with superior performing alternatives. I would normally support pushing our clean sheet rewrites MIT, but I need a license that prohibits the addition of CoC in all derivative/downstream/forks. In the mean time I’ll settle for a competitive advantage.

You don’t use Linux?

Re: Rust Moderation Team Resigns

#810

Post by ok123456 »

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"

Absolutely, no. Bureaucracy is not a substitution for being properly socialized and knowing how to interact with colleagues. In an earlier time they called this good breeding.

Setting up little etiquette kangaroo courts with the power to arbitrate who is allowed to remain in the community is just fundamentally alienating.

Post reply on HN