351–360 of 363 posts
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_spee...
Why would Amazon want the founder off the project? See the following presentation which interestingly enough, is no longer indexed by DuckDuckGo nor Google:
https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinea...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you can't understand something on your own, you might be grateful for an explanation, but nobody actually owes you one.
If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can't understand something on your own, you might be grateful for an explanation, but nobody actually owes you one.
The problem is that other people are making vague claims, without actually substantiating them. If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that other people are making vague claims, without actually substantiating them. If someone makes vague claims like that, they deserve to be dismissed. It is on you to state your concerns clearly, not on other people to read between the lines.
One man's "having to read between the lines" is another's "it's all there in black on white".
Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear.
If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One man's "having to read between the lines" is another's "it's all there in black on white".
> One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear. If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you.
I'm just saying that at least to me,
>>> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 ]
and, at the latest,
>>> they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community. [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514247 ]
felt perfectly clear. That's yanonninator's [sp?] whole beef, right there (twice over), AFAICS. What's not to understand about that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One man's "having to read between the lines" Well apparently there are a whole lot of people , in this thread who agree with me, that this was all pretty unclear. If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating.
> If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we…
Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given.
Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C".
Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"?
If you actually make an argument, then other people can judge if they agree that things X, Y, and Z are bad, or they can judge if they agree or disagree with the consequences of A,B, and C.
But, when someone just says "They have a board seat", they are making a unopinionated factual statement, as opposed to actually justifying what the tweets intend to imply, which is that them having a board seat is bad for certain reasons which are unstated.
Unfortunately, though, I expect the reasons as for why the moral arguments are unstated, is because the person doesn't actually have any moral arguments. Instead, they likely just want to imply that certain things are wrong, without actually having to defend or give reasons as for why the things are at all bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If most people are unable to understand you or your arguments, that is the fault of the communicator, for being so bad at communicating. Sure. But is this really about "most people" -- or just a (very) vocal minority that doesn't (want to) understand? It's not like there are thousands of people asking for clarification; I make it three, including you. I'm just saying that at least to me, >>> Still don't know why we…
> What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually…
Yes and no:
Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact".
But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't see that to many people, "They have [bought] a board seat" is not just an "amoral, unopinionated fact" but in itself already a moral punchline to engage with. There is no need for any tweets to "intend to imply" anything. Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant: That's just not how shit is supposed to work, i.e. wrong in itself.
And frankly, it's a bit baffling to me how you and those who argue like you seem to have such a hard time understanding this view. I mean, it's one thing not to agree with it, but you're all coming off as if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way. Makes me wonder if you're seriously so blind, or if it's some underhanded debating tactic. Whichever it is, in my eyes it seriously weakens your argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What's not to understand about that? Whats not to understand is the moral punchline of any of this, which is left completely unjustified, and is merely implied, without any reasons given. Don't just say "They have a board seat". Instead say "They have a board seat, and are using that board seat for bad things X,Y, and Z, which have negative consequences A, B, and C". Do you see how the corrected statement, actually…
> Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't s…
If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community.
If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong.
For example, maybe the problem is similar to what Microsoft used to do. Maybe it isn't. Maybe Amazon is doing something that is bad, in a separate and different way, than what Microsoft did decades ago.
But if you don't actually make the argument, then other people cannot tell if the issue is bad, in a similar way as to how other past issues were, or if it is bad in a different way, than how the microsoft situation was bad.
Thats why it is better if people actually make the argument. Because although, yes, I could write a fiction book, or a script for a movie, to describe why these hypothetical issues are bad, I might get it completely wrong, and that the actual thing is bad in a different way, because of something specific to the rust community.
> if it hasn't even occurred to you that it's possible to see things that way.
The problem is that I can imagine a dozen different possible ways to "see things that way", which might be completely off the mark, or exactly correct of the reality of the situation.
I can imagine multiple different universes, where my guess would be right, or wrong, and I don't actually know which universe I am in, unless the informed party actually makes the argument, all the way through.
So I can both imagine arguments, as well as imagine how those guesses could be wrong, and why maybe the situation is wrong in a different way, than my first X number of guesses.
Thats why it is so much better if the person actually makes the argument, all the way through.
> Whether any non-beneficial consequences have followed or are immediately to expect is, in their view, irrelevant
Hey, if they had specifically said the following "I concede that there are no other negative effects at all, and that amazon hasn't done anything bad, and I have no other arguments, beyond them having a board seat is bad, in and of itself, with no other justification", then that would be an actual understandable, and straight forward argument!
But they might have made different arguments. If it literally is that they have absolutely no other arguments, beyond "Them having a board seat is bad, and there are no other bad consequences", then it would be nice if they explicitly said that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you see how the corrected statement, actually gives people something to engage with, instead of someone merely asserting the amoral, unopinionated fact of "They have a board seat"? Yes and no: Yes, I understand that to some people, obviously including you, "They have [bought] a board seat" is an "amoral, unopinionated fact". But no, that's not "instead of merely". Looks to me like the problem is that you don't s…
> to have such a hard time understanding this view. If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community. If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand…
> If I were a fiction writer, I could write a dozen different reasons as for what the problem is. But the issue is, that although I could definitely make up reasons, in my fiction book, as for why this is an issue, it tells me nothing about how this actually applies to the Rust community.
You're still not getting it: It's NOT A MATTER OF "applies". It's a question of principle.
> If you actually make the argument yourself, then it allows people to understand if there are specific issues, that are more or less bad, based on the informed opinion of someone directly from the community, instead of our uninformed, guesses, that might be right, or wrong, or slightly wrong.
He already made his argument in full. It's just that you're refusing to acknowledge that it is an argument.
So, thank you, I think I'm done here: I'm obviously unable to convey to you what you're not getting, and I don't think you need to go any more rounds of the same -- I trust it's clear enough to everyone else by now that this is due to your stubborn refusal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An unfortunate blemish on her record is her handling of `wasm-pack`. She worked to ensure it become a critical part of the Rust/Wasm ecosystem and then silently stopped maintaining it. For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights. Even though `wasm-pack` became unusable for many users it was still described as necessary in the…
> For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights. There is an easy and appropriate response to this - just fork() the project under a new name. There's nothing wrong with this, especially when the maintainer doesn't respond to community inquiries. People in the open source community are generally volunteers, so we shouldn't expe…
First, wasm-pack is not Ashley's personal project, it is an official Rust Wasm project. That means it is owned by the Rust Wasm team, and it is maintained by the Rust Wasm team. It is an official part of Rust, similar to how cargo and rustdoc are an official part of Rust. wasm-pack was never intended to be maintained only by Ashley.
Multiple Rust Wasm Core team members (including myself) politely asked Ashley multiple times to transfer publishing rights to the Rust Wasm Core team (which she was supposed to have done months ago), but she refused.
Multiple people had politely offered to take over maintenance of wasm-pack (when it was clear that Ashley was unwilling to do so), but once again she refused. She knew how important wasm-pack is to Rust Wasm, but she did not want to give up control and power, even though it wasn't even supposed to be her package in the first place.
Second, forking is not as simple or as easy as you claim... forking is something that has a very high cost, so it should be done as a last resort. wasm-pack is an official Rust package (and it is vital to Rust Wasm), and so forking it would have a lot of costs:
* A new crate would have to be created (what should it be called? wasm-pack2?)
* The GitHub repo would have to be changed or transferred.
* Multiple different documentation websites (including the official Rust website) would need to be updated.
* A newsletter would need to be sent out informing everybody of the change.
* All existing projects would need to switch to the new package.
* The old package would still exist, which would be very confusing for people, especially because many tutorials and blogs would still be referring to the old wasm-pack!
* Ashley herself would throw a huge tantrum over it, because she would view it as taking control away from herself. And because she is a Rust Core team member, her tantrum would have power behind it.
Forking is absolutely NOT an appropriate solution in this case. Ashley's behavior was simply wrong, unacceptable, and reflects very poorly on the Rust team (which she is a part of).
As for Ashley's personal character... before she worked for Rust, she worked for npm. While she was working there, she tried to falsely accuse Rod Vagg because she wanted to kick him out of npm. Thankfully she failed, and after she failed she quit npm:
https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-ha...
https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53...
While she was working for npm, she violated npm's Code of Conduct numerous times, saying incredibly horrible sexist and racist things such as "kill all men", and actively trying to prevent white men from speaking at tech conferences:
No, she was not joking, and even if it was "just a joke" it is unacceptable. If a man said "kill all women" even as a joke he would be immediately fired and blacklisted from all companies.
Despite all of this, she was still hired onto the Rust Core team, because she is in a romantic relationship with Steve Klabnik (nepotism). Interestingly, Steve Klabnik is also the same person who is smearing Amazon because Amazon denied a job to Ashley.
The Rust Core team was aware of Ashley's past behavior, yet they hired her anyways. And even though numerous people spoke out about this, they were silenced and censored by the Rust team:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/announcement-ashley-willia...
Ashley also abused her moderator powers to ban dakom, even though he had done nothing wrong:
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
She also made numerous lies in those two threads (such as claiming that the Rust Wasm Core team is "random people without organization", the Rust Wasm Core team is hand-picked, they are the official leaders of Rust Wasm).
She acted incredibly disrespectful toward the Rust Wasm team (who worked very hard to make Rust work on Wasm), even though she had contributed basically nothing.
There is a dark side to Rust, which everybody is afraid to talk about. Anybody who tries to discuss things is censored by the Rust Core team. That's why I stopped contributing to Rust and I will never go back.