Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#211

Post by caniszczyk »

rvz wrote: post #188
steveklabnik wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not currently an option, as far as I know. That said as a member of project leadership I would be eligible to run for various positions and be one, but I did not.

Well that's interesting. It looks like the Linux Foundation all over again and its very surprising to see how one could not for-see that such issues like this would happen. After reading the comments, I think that this one [0] even directly shared the same structure concerns [1] you are bringing up and not giving companies like Amazon too much control. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 [1] https://new…

How is this a Linux Foundation issue? The LF usually has board seats reserved for folks who are maintainers, committers and so on, essentially represents all the interests in the community.

Don't put this on the LF, this is definitely on the folks who bootstrapped the foundation and setup the governance in the way they did.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#212

Post by gtirloni »

detaro wrote: post #205
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #204

I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?

Holding (what is perceived to be) too much control over core roles of the project.

That's all? What should we be outraged about specifically?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#213

Post by amrrs »

Here's a response to tbe same from Mara Bos:

>What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon.

https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#214

Post by steveklabnik »

garaetjjte wrote: post #208
steveklabnik wrote: post #140

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.

>just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot, more than most people probably realize. >Again, specifically: what control are you worried about? I suspect that you think the foundation has powers it does not have. [0] These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. Did something changed in the last few months? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126077

I did not expect that this would happen back then, but it has happened now. I was wrong.

(I also thought they were saying the foundation was exerting control over the language, which is incorrect, strictly speaking. The foundation has no formal powers over the language itself.)

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#215

Post by detaro »

gtirloni wrote: post #212
detaro wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holding (what is perceived to be) too much control over core roles of the project.

That's all? What should we be outraged about specifically?

If you can't figure out what to be outraged about, maybe don't be outraged?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#216

Post by steveklabnik »

AndyKelley wrote: post #210
steveklabnik wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Challenge accepted >:-)

I'm rooting for you :)

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#217

Post by athrowaway3z »

noisy_boy wrote: post #109

I think that folks that are asking Steve for more details are not being unreasonable. It came as somewhat surprising to me (and probably to most folks who are not involved with the core/admin side of Rust). However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The obj…

It's not unreasonable, but I think we'll have to wait to see if it's necessary.

It seems to me that he has tried to make a point in private, but it got dismissed.

It's very common to see power structures evolve into an unbalanced state, even with everybody trying to do the best thing.

Hopefully some spotlights are enough to get to a workable balance.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#218

Post by FemmeAndroid »

amrrs wrote: post #213

Here's a response to tbe same from Mara Bos: >What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon. https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19

For context, Mara is the Rust library team leader. The Rust library team maintains the Rust standard library.

https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/library

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#219

Post by [deleted] »

rst wrote: post #144
jonas21 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly enough, the post you linked to is from the blog of Fundación PostgreSQL, which is also being discussed on HN today due to a dispute with the PostgreSQL core team: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512274

Charming. Just grabbed the first link that described the issue. But yeah, the Spanish organization seems... confused at best regarding its own role.

[deleted]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#220

Post by sk2020 »

mjw1007 wrote: post #25

The Rust Foundation has indeed been disappointingly opaque. Their website contains only anodyne director bios and board meeting minutes. The minutes go up to May's meeting, with most of the content omitted under a "Private Session" heading. AIUI the main need for a foundation was so they could own the Rust domain names and trademarks. Eight months later, I've seen no announcement on whether any progress has been made…

I don’t actually see how Amazon stewardship is a bad thing. Corporate custody has been the case for several useful programming languages, with Java, .NET, and Go being obvious and popular examples. Replacing a core team of advocacy-oriented developers with production-oriented developers might give the project a positive new direction too. After all, a popular, design-by-committee compiled language with RAII memory management that targets LLVM already exists.

If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.

Post reply on HN