8 ms·

> In this message, we have avoided airing specific grievances beyond unaccountability. We've chosen to maintain discretion and confidentiality. We recommend tha

> In this message, we have avoided airing specific grievances beyond unaccountability. We've chosen to maintain discretion and confidentiality. We recommend that the broader Rust community and the future Mod Team exercise extreme skepticism of any statements by the Core Team (or members thereof) claiming to illuminate the situation. Isn't that a kind of scorched earth statement? I read it as "we will be discreet and don't believe anything anybody tells you in the future...instead assume all your worst fears are true".

capableweb 5y ago
I read it as they warn people to believe the core team specifically, not the whole Rust organization, as the reason they are leaving is because of the actions from individuals in the core team (or lack of thereof).
- dathinab 5y ago
  > warn [..] to believe the core team It's not even this, it's only "believe the core Team wrt. this specific situation" as well as a implicit "we do not believe the core Team is suited for making decisions about the personnel of the new Moderation Team Members".
woodruffw 5y ago
"Assume all your worst fears are true" is substantially different in meaning from "exercise skepticism around public statements by the Core Team." I understand your reading, but I don't think it's warranted by the actual public announcement here.
- vegai_ 5y ago
  Exercise extreme skepticism. It doesn't seem like that word is there by accident.
  - HelloNurse 5y ago
    Translating from don't-sue-me "extreme skepticism" obviously means "they're a clique of manipulative liars".
nvrspyx 5y ago
It's more them saying be skeptical of anything the accused says about the situation, which is common sense in that the "wrongdoer" will more than likely spin the story to save face. Unlike a court of law, they're under no oath. They may make a statement about the situation if the core team decides to release details on the situation, but they don't want to be the first to do so, so they're simply saying be skeptical if the core team speaks out because it may not be the whole story.
- crate_barre 5y ago
  Without knowing details, I can say from experience that those who feel they are the most righteous are often the most wrong. I’ve been on both sides of this. If this has to be aired publicly, then we need to be able to objectively assess. Otherwise, I’m reading this as ‘we don’t get along with those guys and gals on the core team and vice versa’, which is, fine, it’s just humans not getting along. Which reminds me, I don’t get along with some team members either. I want to write an email just like this, a veritable ‘fuck off, you stink”. Feels good. Now what? Move along everyone, we’re all adults after all (right?).
  - HelloNurse 5y ago
    I'd rather say that a specific very annoying type of wrong people feels righteous, for reasons that range from psychotic entitlement to not understanding what they are doing. Right people often feel righteous for valid reasons.
    - crate_barre 5y ago
      We’ve entered Dunning–Kruger effect, or now days: https://reddit.com/r/NotLikeTheOtherGirls https://reddit.com/r/NotLikeTheOtherGirls So some people are particularly special, huh? I doubt it.
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Not really, the mod-teams grievance is with the structure (and accountability) of the rust organisation (in particular the core-team). Likely they were triggered by a specific instance, but we can assess the problems with accountability, e.g. the power of the core-team to ignore rules that apply to everyone else quite objectively by looking at the power structures of the organisation. I think if you want to highlight problems with a process/structure it is much better not to get into specifics of one instance. This is what the (former) mod-team is doing.
amalcon 5y ago
In context, I read this as: "We're not going to say what, specifically, one or more Core Team members are being held unaccountable for. If the Core Team does say what, specifically, we aren't necessarily going to respond. Don't take our non-response as an endorsement that this is what it's about."
pjc50 5y ago
It's the opposite: it's a "we refuse to drag this drama out into the public sphere" statement.
- u320 5y ago
  It is very much in the public sphere now though.
  - 2fast4you 5y ago
    Sure, but you can't resign and not have it be a public thing. They said as little as they could
    - capableweb 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure you can resign with a lot less "drama", for the lack of a better word. Simply make the PR remove people from the moderators list and say "We don't want to be moderators anymore", but instead they give clues to what could have happen for them to take this action. I guess you can say that their action was "semi-public". It wasn't trying to be completely private, and neither completely public, but somewhere in-between.
      - cycomanic 5y ago
        But if you just say "we don't want to be moderators anymore" nothing would change would it? The whole point of the statement is that the mod-team believes something in the organisational structure needs to change. What would you have done in that case?
        SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        I would explain what went wrong. It's clear that their organizational suggestions were prompted by a member of the core team doing something they consider terribly wrong - how can it be so bad the Rust community has to know about it yet not bad enough that the community needs to know what it was?
donatj 5y ago
If you’re not going to publicly state your grievances, so publicly posting your resignation seems at best political and at worst slanderous. Either let the public in on the situation or don’t. Don’t badmouth someone and then refuse to explain why.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  They explained why: accountability and structure. Do you need specific instances, date and timestamped?
  - donatj 5y ago
    Yes. If you're going to accuse someone of something, have details.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      It's a resignation, not a prosecution. Edit: If it helps, imagine a time you quit your job. Did you provide a datestamped list of incidents that lead to your decision to quit? Or were you, by chance, slightly more vague and provide something along the lines of: "The culture/fit/hours/goals/growth do not align with mine so I am resigning."?
      - jjk166 5y ago
        I've always written out what specific issues I had that led me to resign. If you don't say anything, nothing changes. A resignation letter is a professional curtesy, the point is to provide useful, professional information. Of course in some instances there were personal factors that influenced my decision, and I didn't list those out in detail, but I let them know that those were issues on my end that the employer didn't need to address. There's no need to beat a dead horse and bring up every single grievance, and you can be diplomatic, but if an issue is bad enough to warrant resignation, it really should be mentioned in the resignation letter. I'd certainly never insinuate that my employer had done something wrong but refuse to clarify.
tinco 5y ago
I feel it's a bit of a tautology, the fact that they're resigning already clearly communicates there's an irreconcilable difference between the mod team and the core team. If the core team comes with an explanation that would make light of the situation surely the new mod team would be skeptical. That said, there is still a bit of a game left to be played. The mod team just played their trump card, by instantly making the matter super public. But by keeping the specifics close to the chest they both keep their integrity and they give the next mod team some leverage for their interaction with the core team to resolve this situation. It's really good btw that they're keeping the specifics private. Having someone publicly lynched is never a good situation, it's probably something that's offensive to a group of people, but the person(s) who caused offence probably have no bad intentions. It's hard running an organisation with a diverse group of people. You'll never get everyone to settle on the same moral values so it's inevitable that you'll get someone who is unapologetic about some value they hold.
- anandrew 5y ago
  > but the person(s) who caused offence probably have no bad intentions I'd give the mod team the benefit of the doubt that the offense they've all resigned over is not so mild that it could be committed unintentionally.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > I'd give the mod team the benefit of the doubt that the offense they've all resigned over is not so mild that it could be committed unintentionally. I don't think that's necessarily a safe assumption, particularly in today's cultural and political environment.
    - anandrew 5y ago
      I agree. Lets put it this way: I'll be surprised, but not shocked, if the assumption turns out false.
    - Viliam1234 5y ago
      The people who freak out over trivialities usually don't resign; they try to get others fired.
bkirkby 5y ago
it's very similar to working in a corporation and seeing someone get fired. the company is bound by legal concerns to not reveal why the person was fired, which leaves everyone else wondering if the person had done something fireable or if the company was playing politics with power. i've heard netflix does things a bit differently. when people are asked to leave, their manager sends an email out to everyone explaining exactly why that person was asked to leave. i assume their generous severance package contains a legal release for netflix to be able to do that.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
  > the company is bound by legal concerns to not reveal why the person was fired I think this is a fairly common misconception. While you might sign an anti disparagement agreement when you were hired, those tend to be one-way and designed to protect the company. And the bar to prove a defamation case is extremely high. AIUI, most employers simply do not disclose details on firings as a matter of policy, not law.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    You're correct in that there is no law saying that employers are prohibited from disclosing why a person was fired. But the policies are a result of laws that could open them up to legal action if they were to disclose any specifics. However unlikely that legal action may be, and probably even more unlikely to succeed, they still gain nothing from any such disclosures so it makes perfect sense to prohibit them.
    - voakbasda 5y ago
      Exactly. Any such disclosure gives a foothold for legal action that could drag on for a long time and cost a fortune. Even if you win, you lose, so why take that risk?
    - ectopod 5y ago
      It's not that simple. Arbitrary firings are bad for morale, so it's in management's interest for the remaining employees to understand what happened.
WithinReason 5y ago
You could say it's demeaning towards the Core Team, which violates point 6 of the Rust Code of Conduct.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Sure -- you could say anything: "The moon is made of green cheese". There, see? But me saying that doesn't make it true.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dathinab 5y ago
> of scorched earth statement I wouldn't say so it basically says: Let's keep past thinks in the past. Through it also implies there is at least one Person on the core Team which they are afraid will abuse their "Let's keep past thinks in the past." approach to twist the truth.

capableweb 5y ago

I read it as they warn people to believe the core team specifically, not the whole Rust organization, as the reason they are leaving is because of the actions from individuals in the core team (or lack of thereof).

dathinab 5y ago
> warn [..] to believe the core team It's not even this, it's only "believe the core Team wrt. this specific situation" as well as a implicit "we do not believe the core Team is suited for making decisions about the personnel of the new Moderation Team Members".

woodruffw 5y ago

"Assume all your worst fears are true" is substantially different in meaning from "exercise skepticism around public statements by the Core Team." I understand your reading, but I don't think it's warranted by the actual public announcement here.

vegai_ 5y ago
Exercise extreme skepticism. It doesn't seem like that word is there by accident.
- HelloNurse 5y ago
  Translating from don't-sue-me "extreme skepticism" obviously means "they're a clique of manipulative liars".

nvrspyx 5y ago

It's more them saying be skeptical of anything the accused says about the situation, which is common sense in that the "wrongdoer" will more than likely spin the story to save face. Unlike a court of law, they're under no oath. They may make a statement about the situation if the core team decides to release details on the situation, but they don't want to be the first to do so, so they're simply saying be skeptical if the core team speaks out because it may not be the whole story.

crate_barre 5y ago
Without knowing details, I can say from experience that those who feel they are the most righteous are often the most wrong. I’ve been on both sides of this. If this has to be aired publicly, then we need to be able to objectively assess. Otherwise, I’m reading this as ‘we don’t get along with those guys and gals on the core team and vice versa’, which is, fine, it’s just humans not getting along. Which reminds me, I don’t get along with some team members either. I want to write an email just like this, a veritable ‘fuck off, you stink”. Feels good. Now what? Move along everyone, we’re all adults after all (right?).
- HelloNurse 5y ago
  I'd rather say that a specific very annoying type of wrong people feels righteous, for reasons that range from psychotic entitlement to not understanding what they are doing. Right people often feel righteous for valid reasons.
  - crate_barre 5y ago
    We’ve entered Dunning–Kruger effect, or now days: https://reddit.com/r/NotLikeTheOtherGirls https://reddit.com/r/NotLikeTheOtherGirls So some people are particularly special, huh? I doubt it.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Not really, the mod-teams grievance is with the structure (and accountability) of the rust organisation (in particular the core-team). Likely they were triggered by a specific instance, but we can assess the problems with accountability, e.g. the power of the core-team to ignore rules that apply to everyone else quite objectively by looking at the power structures of the organisation. I think if you want to highlight problems with a process/structure it is much better not to get into specifics of one instance. This is what the (former) mod-team is doing.

amalcon 5y ago

In context, I read this as: "We're not going to say what, specifically, one or more Core Team members are being held unaccountable for. If the Core Team does say what, specifically, we aren't necessarily going to respond. Don't take our non-response as an endorsement that this is what it's about."

pjc50 5y ago

It's the opposite: it's a "we refuse to drag this drama out into the public sphere" statement.

u320 5y ago
It is very much in the public sphere now though.
- 2fast4you 5y ago
  Sure, but you can't resign and not have it be a public thing. They said as little as they could
  - capableweb 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure you can resign with a lot less "drama", for the lack of a better word. Simply make the PR remove people from the moderators list and say "We don't want to be moderators anymore", but instead they give clues to what could have happen for them to take this action. I guess you can say that their action was "semi-public". It wasn't trying to be completely private, and neither completely public, but somewhere in-between.
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      But if you just say "we don't want to be moderators anymore" nothing would change would it? The whole point of the statement is that the mod-team believes something in the organisational structure needs to change. What would you have done in that case?
      - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
        I would explain what went wrong. It's clear that their organizational suggestions were prompted by a member of the core team doing something they consider terribly wrong - how can it be so bad the Rust community has to know about it yet not bad enough that the community needs to know what it was?

donatj 5y ago

If you’re not going to publicly state your grievances, so publicly posting your resignation seems at best political and at worst slanderous. Either let the public in on the situation or don’t. Don’t badmouth someone and then refuse to explain why.

ziddoap 5y ago
They explained why: accountability and structure. Do you need specific instances, date and timestamped?
- donatj 5y ago
  Yes. If you're going to accuse someone of something, have details.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    It's a resignation, not a prosecution. Edit: If it helps, imagine a time you quit your job. Did you provide a datestamped list of incidents that lead to your decision to quit? Or were you, by chance, slightly more vague and provide something along the lines of: "The culture/fit/hours/goals/growth do not align with mine so I am resigning."?
    - jjk166 5y ago
      I've always written out what specific issues I had that led me to resign. If you don't say anything, nothing changes. A resignation letter is a professional curtesy, the point is to provide useful, professional information. Of course in some instances there were personal factors that influenced my decision, and I didn't list those out in detail, but I let them know that those were issues on my end that the employer didn't need to address. There's no need to beat a dead horse and bring up every single grievance, and you can be diplomatic, but if an issue is bad enough to warrant resignation, it really should be mentioned in the resignation letter. I'd certainly never insinuate that my employer had done something wrong but refuse to clarify.

tinco 5y ago

I feel it's a bit of a tautology, the fact that they're resigning already clearly communicates there's an irreconcilable difference between the mod team and the core team. If the core team comes with an explanation that would make light of the situation surely the new mod team would be skeptical. That said, there is still a bit of a game left to be played. The mod team just played their trump card, by instantly making the matter super public. But by keeping the specifics close to the chest they both keep their integrity and they give the next mod team some leverage for their interaction with the core team to resolve this situation. It's really good btw that they're keeping the specifics private. Having someone publicly lynched is never a good situation, it's probably something that's offensive to a group of people, but the person(s) who caused offence probably have no bad intentions. It's hard running an organisation with a diverse group of people. You'll never get everyone to settle on the same moral values so it's inevitable that you'll get someone who is unapologetic about some value they hold.

anandrew 5y ago
> but the person(s) who caused offence probably have no bad intentions I'd give the mod team the benefit of the doubt that the offense they've all resigned over is not so mild that it could be committed unintentionally.
- tharne 5y ago
  > I'd give the mod team the benefit of the doubt that the offense they've all resigned over is not so mild that it could be committed unintentionally. I don't think that's necessarily a safe assumption, particularly in today's cultural and political environment.
  - anandrew 5y ago
    I agree. Lets put it this way: I'll be surprised, but not shocked, if the assumption turns out false.
  - Viliam1234 5y ago
    The people who freak out over trivialities usually don't resign; they try to get others fired.

bkirkby 5y ago

it's very similar to working in a corporation and seeing someone get fired. the company is bound by legal concerns to not reveal why the person was fired, which leaves everyone else wondering if the person had done something fireable or if the company was playing politics with power. i've heard netflix does things a bit differently. when people are asked to leave, their manager sends an email out to everyone explaining exactly why that person was asked to leave. i assume their generous severance package contains a legal release for netflix to be able to do that.

35fbe7d3d5b9 5y ago
> the company is bound by legal concerns to not reveal why the person was fired I think this is a fairly common misconception. While you might sign an anti disparagement agreement when you were hired, those tend to be one-way and designed to protect the company. And the bar to prove a defamation case is extremely high. AIUI, most employers simply do not disclose details on firings as a matter of policy, not law.
- jaywalk 5y ago
  You're correct in that there is no law saying that employers are prohibited from disclosing why a person was fired. But the policies are a result of laws that could open them up to legal action if they were to disclose any specifics. However unlikely that legal action may be, and probably even more unlikely to succeed, they still gain nothing from any such disclosures so it makes perfect sense to prohibit them.
  - voakbasda 5y ago
    Exactly. Any such disclosure gives a foothold for legal action that could drag on for a long time and cost a fortune. Even if you win, you lose, so why take that risk?
  - ectopod 5y ago
    It's not that simple. Arbitrary firings are bad for morale, so it's in management's interest for the remaining employees to understand what happened.

WithinReason 5y ago

You could say it's demeaning towards the Core Team, which violates point 6 of the Rust Code of Conduct.

CRConrad 5y ago
Sure -- you could say anything: "The moon is made of green cheese". There, see? But me saying that doesn't make it true.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dathinab 5y ago

> of scorched earth statement I wouldn't say so it basically says: Let's keep past thinks in the past. Through it also implies there is at least one Person on the core Team which they are afraid will abuse their "Let's keep past thinks in the past." approach to twist the truth.