Steve should write a blog post to flesh out his criticism.
I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
51–60 of 363 posts
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#52Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting? > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. How? OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
> wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
No? The fluff piece says this new document called “Rustacean Principles” originated from Amazon, which is true. And at a glance it seems fairly banal. https://rustacean-principles.netlify.app/
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#53Is 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…
The first tweet links to an InfoWorld article (pseudo-paywall and many ads):
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
Steve is probably objecting to the paragraph that starts, "Given that Matsakis and Miller both work at AWS, it's not surprising that the [Rustacean] principles started out as a spin on Amazonian tenets."
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#54The 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…
> 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.
I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined? Or is this a deeper objection about the existence of a corporate-sponsored Rust Foundation?
I'm also confused by the claims that "Amazon has decided not to have a Rust Foundation ED" when the Rust Foundation is in the midst of an Executive Director search: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#55Earlier 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…
But... doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? It seems like now you are saying that employees of large corporations also should not have serious roles in such Foundations.
It does now, but that's a fairly recent development. That's why Steve is calling this a "regression".
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#56Regarding 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…
> They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language
Maybe, but that's only because Rust was valuable enough to them to do so. It also doesn't give them a pass on a takeover, if that is what's going on.
(No skin in this game. I just can't stand corporate gaslighting about how open source developers need to suck up abuse and like it because reasons.)
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#57Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting? > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. How? OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
> wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
This is from Niko Matsakis himself: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#58>> 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…
What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well. Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?
The issue was with Mozilla bring the only patron. Also, your sentimrnt about Firefox os not shared by many here.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#59Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting? > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. How? OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
> wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
I skimmed it because it looked not worth my time. But even then, who was the person, and why does it matter they're inaccurate on some LinkedInsque piece? I'll continue to think this is standard large project FOSS drama.
I like Rust, and want to know if there's a real issue, however.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#60>> 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…
What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well. Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?
> They are managing the Firefox project well.
Ahem.