4 ms·

"viewable by others" And I'm sure that the authors of the message are aware of that but made the decision to write what they have written anyway.

by gdy 5y ago

danShumway 5y ago
Yes? This is posted to the Rust Org's issue tracker: that is an appropriate place to post a resignation notice for an open org with heavy community interactions, and it's an appropriate place to inform the Rust community in general about their decision. That it happens to be public outside of those groups is beside the point. Do you often show up on Open Source projects complaining that their public scrum boards or pull requests don't document their entire decision-making process? Do you show up in people's IRC logs demanding that they provide context for everything they say? The mod team isn't asking for public debate, they're informing the org about their resignation and briefly listing out why. They don't need to convince you of anything, they're just telling you what their decision already is. This isn't a persuasive essay, this is a notification. I swear, this kind of "if anything is public, you're now suddenly accountable to me, and I should have full access to everything" attitude is exactly why so few organizations are open about any of their internal processes or decisions. It shows up in a lot of places: Open Source and game development in particular. Sometimes people have public conversations in forums/groups that are still intended for specific recipients. Sometimes people share a small part of a process or decision, and not all of it. Sometimes people muse about decisions openly, and their musings aren't intended to be a formal essay to be picked apart or debated. It's fine.
- gdy 5y ago
  "just telling you what their decision already is" That's not the only thing that they did. As the Russian saying goes, 'if you said A, say B'. I'd have no problem with the message 'We are resigning because we had a conflict with a certain team and it didn't get resolved in our way', but they have said more, just enough to make a public accusation without any chance for the accused party to refute it.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    The accused party can say anything they want, including airing out the relevant grievances in a more public way if they want to. Giving someone the option of privacy is not the same as denying them justice. Quite the opposite, it's a mature way of allowing the org (and whichever people are involved in the incident in particular) to choose how public they want to be, and to choose how they want to respond. But that's the extent of what they would owe, the mod team doesn't owe arbitrary people in the public an explanation that's detailed enough for them to form a hot-take immediately within the space of a few hours.
- Macha 5y ago
  It was also posted by members of the outgoing mod team to the community subreddit and tagged with announcement, so it's not like someone outside this drama saw the ticket and decided to reshare it with a wider audience.
  - danShumway 5y ago
    > to the community subreddit and tagged with announcement I'm not sure this really changes anything, it is a community announcement. I think this is something a community would want to know even independent of any other drama, even if they were resigning on good terms. I guess I should clarify that I don't see letting the community know about something as necessarily equivalent to volunteering to debate or even to fully explain. I don't think this stuff is a binary category between never intending a message be read by the public (even if it's technically public) and doing something like a national TV news interview. Rust has a community issue tracker/repo that it uses for organization; posting notifications there (and in other community hubs like Reddit) feels very appropriate to me.

"viewable by others" And I'm sure that the authors of the message are aware of that but made the decision to write what they have written anyway.

by gdy 5y ago

"viewable by others" And I'm sure that the authors of the message are aware of that but made the decision to write what they have written anyway.

danShumway 5y ago

Yes? This is posted to the Rust Org's issue tracker: that is an appropriate place to post a resignation notice for an open org with heavy community interactions, and it's an appropriate place to inform the Rust community in general about their decision. That it happens to be public outside of those groups is beside the point. Do you often show up on Open Source projects complaining that their public scrum boards or pull requests don't document their entire decision-making process? Do you show up in people's IRC logs demanding that they provide context for everything they say? The mod team isn't asking for public debate, they're informing the org about their resignation and briefly listing out why. They don't need to convince you of anything, they're just telling you what their decision already is. This isn't a persuasive essay, this is a notification. I swear, this kind of "if anything is public, you're now suddenly accountable to me, and I should have full access to everything" attitude is exactly why so few organizations are open about any of their internal processes or decisions. It shows up in a lot of places: Open Source and game development in particular. Sometimes people have public conversations in forums/groups that are still intended for specific recipients. Sometimes people share a small part of a process or decision, and not all of it. Sometimes people muse about decisions openly, and their musings aren't intended to be a formal essay to be picked apart or debated. It's fine.

gdy 5y ago
"just telling you what their decision already is" That's not the only thing that they did. As the Russian saying goes, 'if you said A, say B'. I'd have no problem with the message 'We are resigning because we had a conflict with a certain team and it didn't get resolved in our way', but they have said more, just enough to make a public accusation without any chance for the accused party to refute it.
- danShumway 5y ago
  The accused party can say anything they want, including airing out the relevant grievances in a more public way if they want to. Giving someone the option of privacy is not the same as denying them justice. Quite the opposite, it's a mature way of allowing the org (and whichever people are involved in the incident in particular) to choose how public they want to be, and to choose how they want to respond. But that's the extent of what they would owe, the mod team doesn't owe arbitrary people in the public an explanation that's detailed enough for them to form a hot-take immediately within the space of a few hours.
Macha 5y ago
It was also posted by members of the outgoing mod team to the community subreddit and tagged with announcement, so it's not like someone outside this drama saw the ticket and decided to reshare it with a wider audience.
- danShumway 5y ago
  > to the community subreddit and tagged with announcement I'm not sure this really changes anything, it is a community announcement. I think this is something a community would want to know even independent of any other drama, even if they were resigning on good terms. I guess I should clarify that I don't see letting the community know about something as necessarily equivalent to volunteering to debate or even to fully explain. I don't think this stuff is a binary category between never intending a message be read by the public (even if it's technically public) and doing something like a national TV news interview. Rust has a community issue tracker/repo that it uses for organization; posting notifications there (and in other community hubs like Reddit) feels very appropriate to me.