Live data from Hacker News

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

twitter.com

111–120 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#111
Steve should layout his grievances publicly. I'd trust Steve more than Amazon, but at this point we need to understand what is going on.

As leadership/control seems to be mostly on the domain name, name, logo and Github repository; at this point it's possible to fork the project and move to another leadership. There is enough traction, in my opinion, that the "marginalized core devs" could take on the project again. The contributions made by Amazon could then be merged selectively.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you've admitted you haven't read what I said and the tweets and you've just rushed into the comments section? > I don't understand why Google, Microsoft and AWS et. al are on a board of this new foundation. > It is the structure that I am concerned about. Again, I'd rather have them just sponsor Rust, why wasn't a gold or platinum sponsorship like structure considered without placing them on the board of directors…

What "concerns"? Again you have stated and quoted nothing other than vague "it's the structure" or allusions to "too much power". What about the structure? What power are you alluding to? What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?

> What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?

Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community.

Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companies (big ones) that sponsor a project/foundation and not be given a board seat.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What "concerns"? Again you have stated and quoted nothing other than vague "it's the structure" or allusions to "too much power". What about the structure? What power are you alluding to? What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?

> What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"? Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companie…

You've replied yet again without actually stating what your concerns are. Lol "gaslighting". Ok.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#114

I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that. Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.

Please provide more specifics so we can learn from their concerns ... Experienced C++ developers have been an essential part of moving Rust forward.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#115
post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get th…

Either air dirty laundry or don't, then. "They are super shady, trust me" is worse than both.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get th…

> he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. Unfortunately, it seems we're getting the worst of both worlds: The dirty laundry is being aired in this thread, but the actual details are being withheld. From the Tweet thread: > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusat…

> I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusations.

Feel free to disregard the trailing sentence. However, it's not fair do discard each and any substantiated accusation by trying to shift the attention to a passing comment, specially a common one which is used as a figure of speech.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation. I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director. I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The s…

I don't want Amazon to define Rust but I want my pal to define it doesn't exactly sound like a solid argument. Is there any more meat on the bone here?

I did not say "I want my pal to define it" at all. My main thrust here is that no one organization, let alone one person, gets to define what Rust is. And that we have a situation where one organization is gaining a significant amount of power very quickly, and using that to gain even more power.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#118
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The announcement blog post at https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru... says the initial version was "quite closely modeled on AWS tenets".

Tenets as used internally at AWS are a set of principles that each team decides for themselves, as guides in the face of ambiguity. There's no overarching set of tenets (that I'm aware of), so this is probably just referring to the idea of having a guiding set of principles to resolve tradeoffs.

[deleted]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#119
post #90
post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

Rust isn't the only community that's at risk of getting coopted by corporate sponsors. The PostgreSQL core team now has an explicit policy that no single company employs more than half its members -- but to follow it, last year, they had to expand membership (after companies employing 50% of the prior core team merged, and they didn't want to boot anyone). https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre.…

That's a decent balacing mechanism as a starting base. Your link raises interesting points though.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation. I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director. I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The s…

I don't want Amazon to define Rust but I want my pal to define it doesn't exactly sound like a solid argument. Is there any more meat on the bone here?

Ashley has been really great for the Rust community, isn't currently employed by a massive corporation, and has some really solid views & principles on how to empower open source work. (See some of her talks) Empowering open source work on Rust is exactly what the Rust foundation is supposed to do, which is why I'd really have preferred a Rust foundation with Ashley as ED.
Post reply on HN