Live data from Hacker News

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

twitter.com

171–180 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#171
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ED detail buried in this tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437450014507376649 --- cut here --- sorry, the tweet length got me here! they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on

What is "ED" in this context?

Executive Director.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#172
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ED detail buried in this tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437450014507376649 --- cut here --- sorry, the tweet length got me here! they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on

What is "ED" in this context?

after reading around a bit I think it means "executive director" (not super familiar with this matter)

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#173
post #73

Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away. Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong. Let's watch the show.

They're doing it now. Check out the flagged dead comments libeling Klabnik.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#174

,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.'' ,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.'' Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.

"making deals" is the wrong characterization. "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.

You're talking in public now and bring the discussion into the public in the least professional way possible.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Or I can trust neither, and expect that both sides act like adults and actually state their concerns and accusations rather than vague "just trust me, you should be upset" statements. Whipping everyone into a furor with vague concerns without actually giving enough information to address…

He called out specific things and had a tweet which was pretty vague about some bad behavior. If you want to focus on that and imply it's childish you are the one distracting from discussing more important issues. That's probably why takes like that get downvoted. --- From the comments Steve has made it sounds like Amazon effectively has control of Rust not only because of their large involvement but also because a s…

He said in his first tweet that he wants to have a "serious conversation", then goes on to list three grievances: that Amazon has a lot of involvement in Rust leadership, that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) and that Amazon "has done some other dirty shit" (but no details).

That's two out of three grievances that have no substance whatsoever. You cannot have a serious conversation about these things if there is not more detail. I'm not distracting from anything, I'm asking Steve to either step up and discuss these things as he stated he wants to do, or he needs to stop distracting from serious issues with these snarky one-liners. If you include something like that in a tweet, you should expect to follow up on it.

It's ridiculous and disingenuous to tweet something like that and then say "well I don't actually want to talk about that and it's your fault for not reading my mind to know that".

>That's probably why takes like that get downvoted.

My comment currently has 50 upvotes. I don't think I'm the only person saying this.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#177
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…

>> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.

> This sounds like the real concern

I actually think it distracts from their argument. Either say something or don 't. What purpose do vague accusations have here? Scare Amazon into behaving so not to get bad press? If the actions are concerning enough that Amazon should not have full-control, then why wouldn't those actions still not be pertinent if they do not define Rust.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#178
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ED detail buried in this tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437450014507376649 --- cut here --- sorry, the tweet length got me here! they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on

What is "ED" in this context?

I think executive director.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#179

I think Steve has a well earned reputation for being decent and trustworthy. I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as taci…

> but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships.

In another comment, Steve said he was not a member of the Rust Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#180

I think Steve has a well earned reputation for being decent and trustworthy. I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as taci…

> but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. In another comment, Steve said he was not a member of the Rust Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771

Is individual membership even an option? https://foundation.rust-lang.org/info/become-a-member/ doesn't seem to contemplate it.
Post reply on HN