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

221–230 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#221

Post by robocat »

jonas21 wrote: post #125
rst wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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

Here is the full response from Álvaro Hernández at Fundación PostgreSQL:

https://postgresql.fund/blog/postgres-core-team-attacks-post...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#223

Post by ncmncm »

bythckr wrote: post #31
thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #2

>> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla. >> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects. >> Why are we regressing here? Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS. Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue…

What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well. Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?

Apache is where projects go to die. So, probably not.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#224

Post by smolder »

xdavidliu wrote: post #193
codesections wrote: post #75

The platinum members of the Rust Foundation are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Mozilla, and Huawei. I'd pretty much prefer that none of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.

genuinely curious, has there been any evidence in the past of large corporations decreasing the quality of programming languages that they have influence over?

I know some people took issue with Oracle buying Sun and controlling Java, and I think it had something to do with licensing. Perhaps that doesn't qualify, though.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#225

Post by kzrdude »

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…

Do we expect too much? Just like with Mozilla? We want them to be a force for good, but they also need to be effective. Though this is less true for Rust than for Mozilla, Rust the language shouldn't really need a revenue

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#226

Post by ncmncm »

Kbelicius wrote: post #207
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alphabet? The correct answer is we don't know since people are being coy with details......

Amazon is named in the first tweet when you click on the link. Nobody is being coy.

And, indeed, in the title of the HN article you are right in the middle of comments upon.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#227

Post by hdevalence »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #179
munificent wrote: post #149

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

Your interpretation of "a group you are a member of" as referring to formal membership in the Rust Foundation specifically, rather than membership in the Rust community generally* seems like it gets at one of the issues in dispute, namely, whether there is an effort by corporate participants in the RF to (re)define what Rust is.

(*): "community membership" is necessarily somewhat nebulous, but Steve is, undeniably, a member of the Rust community.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#228

Post by Animats »

steveklabnik wrote: post #136
ilaksh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that Amazon getting too much control is a real problem. But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or at least he is the one that is supposed to write articles about what Rust is about. Not someone from Amazon or anywhere else.

I do not think Rust is about me. Note that I specifically say that Rust should not be about any individual, let alone a company. I’ve made my case against BDFLs for years.

That is a problem. Perl 6 and Python 3 did not go well.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#229

Post by atdrummond »

steveklabnik wrote: post #214
garaetjjte wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.)

If anything, I now find myself more inclined to believe your contentions; you approached this issue as a skeptic and still walked away believing there to be a significant area of concern.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#230

Post by robocat »

jdblair wrote: post #68
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

See Steve’s comments here, which clarifies why cutting the executive director (ED) is a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
Post reply on HN