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

41–50 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#41

Post by secuthro22 »

yannoninator wrote: post #30
jhugo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on foundations for them to do this. for them to do what? > I feared this would happen months ago feared what would happen? > Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise. what has come true? In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be…

You know what this is about. I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets and now you're trying to gaslight the situation. 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. Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.

>You know what this is about.

No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything.

>I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets

Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is).

If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#42

Post by sophacles »

munk-a wrote: post #16
dyingkneepad wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc. There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may…

The solution isn't "Well - let's stop that company from using our product" it's to ride that company for a while and try to remain semi-independent until the spotlight shown on your product by that company attracts other devs. Basically the "Oh hey - Amazon decided to use Rust? Maybe it isn't just a passing fad..." adoption takes time and Rust is still very young.

No one is suggesting that the company stop using it, where did you get such a silly notion?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#43

Post by jdblair »

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 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.

[edited to fix formatting]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#44

Post by steveklabnik »

poppejans wrote: post #9
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…

Not let them have the foundation chair. I think Ashley would've made a great chairwoman, but she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.

> she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.

I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director.

I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The structural issue here is that the foundation decided to forgo extending her contract while looking for a new ED; this means that the foundation currently does not have one, and we don't know when a new one is coming. During that time, the chair of the board has more power than they usually would, and Amazon is chair of the board.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#45

Post by bcantrill »

darksaints wrote: post #29

I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles: * “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” * “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.” * “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.” * “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.” * “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.” * “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”…

The problem is that they are bromides and claptrap, not principles. There is an important distinction to be made here between principles and values, which they are not making in part because Amazon themselves do not understand the difference.[0] Having a community define its values is important[1], but this is emphatically not the way to do it -- and these are not it besides.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc

[1] https://vimeo.com/230142234

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#46

Post by leshow »

HugoDaniel wrote: post #15

Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages. Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust. Other languages have been through worse and survive…

IMO Rust should have a future independent of Amazon. Ideally, we want everyone to be able to write Rust and not have it co-opted specifically for Amazon's purposes (I have no information that this is actually happening-- just reading the tweet like everyone else).

I wouldn't want a company like Google to think that Amazon has too much control over the direction of the language and choose not to use it, for example.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#47

Post by xiphias2 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #38
xiphias2 wrote: post #34

,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.'' ,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.'' Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.

"making deals" is the wrong characterization. "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.

Sure, I understand that, but the tweetstorm is very non-specific. The only reason why I share your concern is because you built an amazing personal brand.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#48

Post by LanceH »

Ansil849 wrote: post #26
kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

> Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? When is there not? Tweets are a horrible medium for contextual information.

Incredibly vague rants are designed to get people to take sides, presumably against Amazon, because they're big and therefor always doing evil.

This reads like drama for the sake of drama.

Edit: I should have said that posting this to HN is just posting drama. Using twitter to vent is fine, just not newsworthy in any way.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#49

Post by marricks »

kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too.

You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get the ball rolling in a better direction.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#50

Post by goldenkey »

darksaints wrote: post #29

I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles: * “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” * “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.” * “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.” * “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.” * “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.” * “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”…

You need to read below the fold to see the Amazon Leadership Principles (the ones that make Amazon a shitty place to work at):

How to Rustacean

Be kind and considerate

Bring joy to the user

Show up

Recognize others’ knowledge

Start somewhere

Follow through

Pay it forward

Trust and delegate

Post reply on HN