5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoWithout 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 agoI'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 agoWe’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 agoNot 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.
- crate_barre 5y agoSo get into the specifics of every instance. Trust me, the world is bored, we’ll be judge and jury on this. Don’t be half assed about it. Ya’ll wanna air it out, air it out.
- KingOfCoders 5y agoThis is what the mod team says. I can't assess if that is the case or not.
- u320 5y agoSure but there is no way for us to know who the wrongdoer is in this case.
- q1w2 5y agoWhy do we care? Are we in middle school? We are professionals - I'm not going to get involved in playground politics.
- criddell 5y agoYet here you are getting involved.
- PKop 5y ago>Why do we care? We're developers, and many use Rust (though organizational politics can effect many other projects as well, how it plays out here could affect other situations etc) so in one way or another care very much about if the project is being run effectively, which side to support in internal conflict so as to ensure the project keeps being run effectively etc. >not going to get involved Getting involved or not are both political acts.
- golemotron 5y agoProprietary software has a lot of problems and open source was a good response to them, but it's notable that proprietary isn't as prone to the 'middle school' problem. When money is involved, there's more alignment.
- nvrspyx 5y agoWell, obviously, but that's why you should be skeptical of both sides. It's just that the resigned moderation team aren't saying anything. I'd expect the core team to also urge people to be skeptical if the former moderation team do speak out about the situation. I'm not saying who is right or wrong. I'm just responding to the parent comment because I think they're extrapolating too much from the statement.