161–170 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it isn't and it's actually good not to go very confrontational right from the start?
Given the tweets, I think we are past the point of no confrontation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Administrative minutiae is important. The foundation controls our IP and a large pot of money. How that is used matters. I am not taking any beef with specific moves here, just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot , more than most people probably realize.
Can you elaborate on what the money is currently used for and what the risk here is? Is Amazon attempting to move more Rust infrastructure to AWS?
I am not a member of the foundation and so can't really speak to what is being spent currently. As far as I know a public budget has not been posted.
The risk is that they can set the direction to anything. They might be amazing stewards, they might spend it all on useless things. We don't yet know. I do know that many of the folks in the foundation have their hearts in the right place.
Again, the theme isn't about specific actions, it is about consolidation of control.
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…
> But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects. I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined…
Bingo.
>I want big companies to be involved in Rust Why? Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg. I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.
I don't think it's possible to build a production grade programming language today without large amounts of capital. Unfortunately, companies are the only way to gain access to that amount of money. I elaborated a bit on that over here: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976
Elm isn't as big as Rust or other languages, but it's definitely production-grade (in that loads of companies are using it in production), and the only capital that's been put into it is approximately one full-time software engineer being paid to work on it for 5ish years.
Steve should write a blog post to flesh out his criticism.
So far I've only followed Rust peripherally, but if Amazon is going to drive it, that makes me more interested in adopting it. Experience with Scala, and contrast with Golang and TypeScript, makes me want to use a language that has a strong corporate backer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc. There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may…
But... doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? It seems like now you are saying that employees of large corporations also should not have serious roles in such Foundations.
Guess which FAANG company has de facto control of the foundation now? I'll give you two hints: it starts with A and isn't Apple.
Plenty of successful languages have been developed by large companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've replied yet again without actually stating what your concerns are. Lol "gaslighting". Ok.
So you're saying there isn't an issue with the Rust foundation's governance then? Now I'm assuming you just jumped into the comments without understanding anything no? EDIT: > We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust. @stale2002 I already mentioned this issue. However the user @secuthro22 continued trolling further with…
That would be way easier. Instead of writing a paragraph, I don't know, attacking someone for not reading past threads or comments, you could just give a single sentence, that describes the issue.
That would be way faster, and then everyone is happy.
One confusing thing highlighted in the thread: the article says Niko Matsakis is "co-lead of the Rust programming language project". Niko is a long-term participant in Rust, and former core-team member ( https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core ), who's made huge contributions. However, it's not clear to me what that co-lead reference means. The closest that comes up is that he's a co-lead of the rust language…