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

261–270 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#261

Post by kbenson »

stale2002 wrote: post #257
kbenson wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> decided to not have a Rust Foundation ED, meaning Chair has outsized power in the Foundation > that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) That seems like details to me. It's also extrapolated on elsewhere here. > 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. Actually, you could, just by ign…

> and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was the action that amazon did, to marginalize anyone? Did they say mean things about them? Did they have a meeting without them? Did they kick them off of a group? Did they create a feature roadmap, without getting the core teams feedback? Just say specifically what…

> Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"?

You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."?

My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Amazon is the lead on multiple teams, and chose not elect a new executive directory while letting the prior one go? I think not. Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. What bearing does the "they've marginalized the core team" statement have on them that renders them being unworthy to assess?

> What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization.

That exact same tweet you reference notes they've decided not to have an Executive Director. Maybe if people weren't ignoring that because of some later statement that might get some attention.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#262

Post by AndyKelley »

ncmncm wrote: post #247
AndyKelley wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Challenge accepted >:-)

Here's hoping you finally get lambdas and destructors, and can step up.

Thanks for the feedback - I created a special issue tracker that gets higher priority, can you submit your proposal there? https://is.gd/WVZvnI

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#263

Post by deanCommie »

est31 wrote: post #255

IDK I think this is overblown. Amazon employs two core members of Rust leadership. Both of whom worked hard on making Rust amazing like few others did. Both of whom who joined Mozilla to work on amazing projects for wages below what different places in the industry would pay. Do such people really betray their project of passion for money? Note that joining Amazon alone is no such act. It's joining Amazon and then be…

> It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language.

To clarify, is that happening, or is that a warning that vigilance is needed to ensure it doesn't happen?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#264

Post by stale2002 »

kbenson wrote: post #261
stale2002 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was the action that amazon did, to marginalize anyone? Did they say mean things about them? Did they have a meeting without them? Did they kick them off of a group? Did they create a feature roadmap, without getting the core teams feedback? Just say specifically what…

> Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."? My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Ama…

> But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior

Its not ignoring! Its asking people to say what the actual problem is, beyond just that Amazon has people on a couple committees.

Have these committees done anything bad? Is amazon pushing for features that people don't like? Will some future bad thing happen because of this? What is the value statement here!

> Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually.

Ok, and the problem is that nobody is actually saying why some things are bad or not.

> that might get some attention.

I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care?

You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad.

I could make a dozen different guesses as to why you, or others, think there is a problem. But I shouldn't have to do that.

It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#265

Post by vjust »

Its like back when XML was a thing, and people were freaked out about Microsoft's outsize influence on the XML standards committee. MS tried very hard to put in features into XML that would align nicely with their proprietary tools. IBM and others fought to keep XML agnostic. Satisfying that XML doesn't occupy an important place... given how Microsoft tried to take advantage.

Sometimes vendors will influence, if not in intent, in 'naturally' justifying 'intuitive' features - intuitive in the sense it might line up nicely with their future roadmaps?

Amazon has got some negative publicity with exploiting Open Source projects and using it in AWS. Recall how Oracle has 'guided' Java. Not saying that Amazon will come with its own agenda. In general Amazon has played nice with OSS.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#266

Post by pitterpatter »

mjw1007 wrote: post #180
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The by-laws do make a mention of it:

https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/bylaws/#section-2....

>The Foundation shall have five classes of membership: Platinum Members, Gold Members, Silver Members, Associate Members, and Individual Members.

At the same time though, there doesn't seem to be a general way for becoming one now:

>The Individual Members of the Foundation shall initially be the members of the Core Team, as defined in Section 5.5(b) below, and may be extended to other individual maintainers of the Projects and subject to any other qualifications as may from time to time be established by the Board.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#267

Post by zozbot234 »

deanCommie wrote: post #263
est31 wrote: post #255

IDK I think this is overblown. Amazon employs two core members of Rust leadership. Both of whom worked hard on making Rust amazing like few others did. Both of whom who joined Mozilla to work on amazing projects for wages below what different places in the industry would pay. Do such people really betray their project of passion for money? Note that joining Amazon alone is no such act. It's joining Amazon and then be…

> It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language. To clarify, is that happening, or is that a warning that vigilance is needed to ensure it doesn't happen?

I don't think there has been any evidence of this. But I've seen some complaints that development of Rust is becoming somewhat less transparent and less deliberation-driven; it can be somewhat harder for community members outside of the teams proper to provide appropriate input. This is only a very slight concern so far, but it makes the risk of 'lobbying' behavior a bit higher.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#268

Post by thih9 »

The InfoWorld article [1] (linked from the first tweet of the thread) has now been updated:

> Editor’s note: A previous version of the article correctly stated that the Rustacean Principles were modeled after Amazonian tenets, but unintentionally may have implied that Amazon was somehow responsible for Rust development. Amazon employs several Rust maintainers and contributors, but it is just one of many companies with employees involved.

[1]: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#269

Post by vjust »

jdblair wrote: 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…

This is concerning to say the least.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#270

Post by vjust »

secuthro22 wrote: post #175
marricks wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

Well he's one guy, against the industry behemoth. Give him some credit, rather than big brother. Even if he errs. I'd not buy any rebuttal by the thousand-pound gorilla at face value
Post reply on HN