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

301–310 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#301

Post by mzs »

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

This has reached vague-booking level of OS drama:

>Oh and one thing I should say too: suggesting that core doesn’t do anything during the same year we managed the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of the foundation is incredibly disrespectful to those on core who did all of that intense work.

https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#302

Post by [deleted] »

secuthro22 wrote: post #123
yannoninator wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wouldn't know. There might be, which is why I've asked you multiple times to explain the issue to me and yet you have neglected to do so.

[deleted]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#303

Post by zozbot234 »

mzs wrote: post #301
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

This has reached vague-booking level of OS drama: >Oh and one thing I should say too: suggesting that core doesn’t do anything during the same year we managed the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of the foundation is incredibly disrespectful to those on core who did all of that intense work. https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241

Is this supposed to be a reference to Mara's post? They never said that the core team is not "doing anything", only that they're less involved in steering the Rust project as a whole. Managing the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of a new foundation may be very worthwhile and perhaps intense work, but it has remarkably little to do with Mara's narrower point about project direction.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#304

Post by nickm12 »

vjust wrote: post #281
nickm12 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misunderstanding. Amazon and AWS use "tenets" as a tool for focusing and aligning a team on what it values. The Rust Principles are an application of that tool for the Rust project, not adopting the exact same tenets that teams at Amazon/AWS use. See this 90 second video for a quick rundown of how tenets are used. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5raEKA57PMY (Disclosure, I'm an Amazon employee and am familia…

AWS tenets are good for AWS. Rust has its own tenets. Both should be kept separate.

Yes, that is exactly what is happening here! When the Rustacean Principles were created, Niko said in his blog post[1] that the idea of creating principles was inspired by AWS. Not that the principles themselves were taken from AWS.

Writing tenets is a tool, like making a checklist is a tool. You can use the idea of making a checklist without using the checklist items.

[1] https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2021/09/08/rus...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#305

Post by ajross »

c-cube wrote: post #286
ajross wrote: post #148

Had to chime in on the first of the named "principles" of the language, because it makes a good example of what I think is wrong with the Rust community: > “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet. The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as ple…

It's not just about UB, it's about the design encouraging good code and defensive programming. That includes enums, non nullability, immutability by default, etc.

Still seems poorly captured by "if it compiles, it works", no? The point was this was marketing, not a statement of principle. Rust needs to do more of the latter and less of the former. The time for marketing was years back.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#306

Post by kibwen »

skohan wrote: post #129
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…

Honestly this is what I was afraid of when Mozilla backed off on Rust support and Amazon and others stepped in to fill the gap. One of the main selling points for me to start learning Rust was the truly open-source pedigree - with Mozilla backing it there seemed to be very few perverse incentives going against Rust's goals of having a great developer story. If Amazon would be in the drivers' seat, that incentive stru…

To be clear, the Rust Foundation has no influence over the design or development of the language, stdlib, or tooling. Those are duties of the dedicated Rust teams listed at https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/ , and the foundation has no power to determine the membership of those teams.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#307

Post by kibwen »

zozbot234 wrote: post #267
deanCommie wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I've seen some complaints

Can you elaborate? IME Rust development is as transparent as ever.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#308

Post by eximius »

Summary:

- The Board of the Rust Foundation intentionally let the contract for the current acting Executive Director (ED) of the Rust Foundation lapse.

- It was intentional because it would have been easy to extend the contract but it was chosen not to.

- The lack of ED gives Amazon a great deal of control as the Chair of the Rust Foundation.

- There may be some underhanded or subjectively dirty things being done by Amazon administratively or PR-wise regarding Rust.

- Because of the power imbalance created by the lack of ED, those actions are a cause for concern.

- Regardless of how/why/who caused this, regardless of intent for administration, this situation should be fixed.

Solution: The Board of the Rust Foundation needs to pick the damn ED and establish limits on membership affiliation like other projects.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#309

Post by PragmaticPulp »

hdevalence wrote: post #227
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

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…

> 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

The linked Tweet thread is specifically directed at the Rust Foundation, not the general Rust community.

Steve Klabnik is obviously a member of the Rust community.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#310

Post by ljm »

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…

I think it's even simpler than that: Rust was a Mozilla project from inception, and suddenly in 2020 it wasn't because Mozilla made all their Rust engineers redundant.

The Rust Foundation lost its main sponsor, because Mozilla pulled out... that's a spectacular betrayal. Amazon comes in with a better offer to support the language. Why say no?

Klabnik doesn't like it, but the simple and sad truth is that Mozilla abandoned Rust.

edit: this post was pure speculation and I was corrected by Steve Klabnik in a reply :)

Post reply on HN