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

311–320 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#311

Post by steveklabnik »

ljm wrote: post #310
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 aband…

The foundation was created after Mozilla let the team go. Mozilla also joined the foundation.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#312

Post by twoodfin »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #299
twoodfin wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The C++ Committee story was primarily about Google and other large corporate interests advocating a large techno local change in the language to benefit their use case with no input or consideration for other users of the tool Any links for background on this debate?

As I posted in the sibling comment, the Goals submission is at [1]. The Reddit and HN threads are pretty easy to search for (and there were quite a few). Summary, as I remember it, a group of primarily FAANG, with a large Google presence, authored a submission for the C++ Committee which was effectively a flag in the sand saying they (and their very deep pockets) wanted C++ to be primarily gear toward large, modern s…

Thanks. I remember that proposal and thinking it was pretty wild.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#313

Post by ljm »

steveklabnik wrote: post #311
ljm wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aband…

The foundation was created after Mozilla let the team go. Mozilla also joined the foundation.

So I was bullshitting :) I've updated the post with a clarification.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#314

Post by hardwaresofton »

One thing I haven't seen highlighted is the difference in attitude/action between Amazon as a corporate sponsor and other corporate sponsors. Rust has other corporate sponsors (Microsoft is on there essentially twice w/ the GitHub acquisition) -- has any such attempt been made by other sponsors?

That aside I'm convinced this is the fate of all board/complicated governance structure popular open source project. If you make the governance structure that mirrors corporate constructions, people who work at big corporations and know how the politics work are going to find themselves right at home.

I don't know what the solution is, you can't expect every project to have a BDFL and there is a lot of work to be done on a huge open source project, but I always see the adoption of a corporation-like governance structure without explicit limitation on the power/influence of involved groups/corporations as a red flag.

Steve mentions it himself but the idea that Mozilla is anything like Amazon is a farce. I'd trust Mozilla to build me a browser (they do), a phone (they did), a physical computer and whatever else because of how they're structured, what they profess, and their track record. I'd trust Amazon to do none of those things (mostly because I thankfully have other options right now). Mozilla supported this project from it's inception and has made it what it is (along the way reducing it's own influence to make sure there was no misconception). Amazon has no such track record that I know of, and it's corporate structure does not suggest any alternative driving force outside of maximizing profit.

The contributors who happen to work at Amazon who were able to contribute to Rust under Amazon's largesse (whether direct or indirect) deserve the status they have achieved within Rust, but there is a conflict of interest. If that conflict of interest grows, then it has to be addressed.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#315

Post by zozbot234 »

kibwen wrote: post #307
zozbot234 wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd rather not put words in anyone's mouth, sorry! It's not like it even matters all that much, it's something that individual project teams could easily fix by improving and standardizing on how to more consistently seek outside community input on new developments (leveraging, e.g. the public 'internals' forum, and/or the RFC github repo). This was not needed before since the core team was picking up a lot of that slack. But obviously we've been seeing some changes wrt. that.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#316

Post by gopiandcode »

There was an interesting quote under one of the replies:

> The power of rust is that it's for the people... not for massive orgs to wield in order to make more money

Given that most rust code is licensed under non-copyleft licenses (MIT, etc.) I wonder where this impression came from? I have always had the impression that rust was exactly that - just another tool for massive orgs to make more money.

In contrast, a language ecosystem more like elisp, where most code is GPLed seems more "for the people".

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#317

Post by burntsushi »

zozbot234 wrote: post #315
kibwen wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen some complaints Can you elaborate? IME Rust development is as transparent as ever.

I'd rather not put words in anyone's mouth, sorry! It's not like it even matters all that much, it's something that individual project teams could easily fix by improving and standardizing on how to more consistently seek outside community input on new developments (leveraging, e.g. the public 'internals' forum, and/or the RFC github repo). This was not needed before since the core team was picking up a lot of that s…

The individual sub-teams have been using RFCs as the way to push through major changes for years and years and years. Pretty much since the sub-teams were born, around when Rust 1.0 was released in 2015. Nothing has changed there. I know because I was there in the beginning and I'm still here.

What has changed since the beginning is that there are more working groups these days. For example, there are working groups specializing in SIMD and error handling, among many others (they just happen to be the ones I follow in particular). The working groups generally work toward writing an RFC for the broader community to give feedback on. But working groups themselves are open to anyone, and they aren't difficult to join. (And you don't even need to "join" to participate. You just have to show up and start giving feedback.) The key point here is that the RFC process is still used, same as it always has been.

To be clear, working groups and the Rust teams choose their own membership. Neither Amazon nor the Rust Foundation have any say.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#318

Post by nabakin »

I think Steve is being too vague for me to understand well. Let me see if I can break it down.

Steve is suggesting Amazon is becoming a problem to the future of Rust. He is suggesting that Amazon is coming to control Rust. The evidence he is giving to this end is:

1. An Amazon employee creating Rust principles that shape the community

2. An Amazon employee being effectively in control of the Rust Foundation because there's no Executive Director atm

3. Amazon employees taking up many positions in leadership

4. Some supposed "dirty shit" going on by Amazon behind the scenes

5. The core team losing their recognition and status?

#1 would be a problem if they didn't consult the rest of leadership first or if the principles are pushing forward Amazon's own personal agenda but Steve isn't making those claims as far as I know.

#2 is a problem atm but I assume a temporary one. Steve isn't making the claim that they are not appointing an ED in order to gain power but this is a problem that remains nonetheless. Amazon should not be in control of the Rust Foundation.

#3 Amazon employees should not be able to control the Rust Foundation, if this is what is happening.

#4 Steve claims something dirty is happening behind the scenes by Amazon. Unfortunately, we don't have details on what supposedly dirty things are happening. Of course if Amazon is pushing their interests on the rest of the Rust team, that would be a problem.

#5 Steve refers to the core team being undermined but I don't understand what he means by that. Is no one listening to the core team anymore? Are they not being included in important leadership decisions? Is the core team not functioning as it was originally designed? What is the problem here specifically?

It does seem like Amazon is gaining a lot of control over Rust and that should probably be adjusted. Firstly, by appointing an executive director. I don't see any evidence of malice or agenda pushing by Amazon though. I cannot agree with Steve here without evidence. The core team should be working as intended too. It seems like Rust leadership needs to come together to discuss these issues and try to resolve them. I'm not sure why Steve is asking the community to solve them when it's leadership that has the decision-making power here.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#319

Post by ctvo »

zozbot234 wrote: post #303
mzs wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is about the time I confirmed it was FOSS drama. Disrespectin’ muh contributions is a tune we’ve heard.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#320

Post by bsder »

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 this is simply Rust having to deal with switching from "minimize conflict" to "manage conflict".

Corporate entities don't really care about "inclusiveness" or "minimizing conflict".

So, Rust governance will either grow the structures and leadership to "manage conflict" or get steamrolled.

Post reply on HN