4 ms·

It seems to me more like, the prosecution decided not to present their case, and the defendant’s lawyers are trying to figure out the right motion to file.

ziml77 5y ago
I don't know why any of us are judging all of this from nothing. The only pieces of information we have are that the moderation team left because of issues with the core team and that they think no one should trust the Rust core team. But I don't know why I should trust either side. I need a lot more info before concluding anything.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  > and that they think no one should trust the Rust core team I don’t remember reading anything suggesting this, could you point out where you read this?
  - ziml77 5y ago
    From the resignation letter: > 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. I should have been clear in my comment that it wasn’t about trust in general but just this situation
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      Okay, I didn’t remember that line. Thanks for the response.
    - rurban 5y ago
      From this you can easily conclude the reverse. We recommend that the broader Rust community and the Core team exercise extreme scepticism of any statement by the past and future Mod team claiming to illuminate the situation. Death by CoC.
- killingtime74 5y ago
  My thought is slightly different. When you're a lawyer representing someone that does illegal things (ongoing, not in the past) sometimes the only thing you can ethically do is quit. You can't reveal what is illegal due to privilege. Similarly here, they may not be able to reveal whatever is going wrong due to anti disparagement clause or threats of defamation. literally the only thing you can do is quit, which is what they did, which sends a very strong signal to outsiders.
  - Someone 5y ago
    This _may_ also be similar to a lawyer who stops representing someone who the lawyer thinks does immoral things, with the two parties disagreeing about that. Without knowing details, I can’t judge who’s (more) right here. That strong signal _can_ be misused, and sometimes is misused. “You’re evil, but I’m not allowed to tell the world why” is something you can’t defend yourself against.
    - killingtime74 5y ago
      It's true except Rust core team can defend themselves by being transparent or allowing moderators to speak. These aren't national security secrets. In the lawyer case you almost always believe the quitting lawyer, they are just doing their job, it must be pretty bad for them to need to quit.
killingtime74 5y ago
It's the defence team quit In the analogy due to their access to internal Communication which they cannot reveal. probably under threat of anti-disparagement or defamation. Cannot see it as not presenting their case, have to read between their lines. Of course the Rust core team could be fully transparent and release everything to us outsiders to judge, but somehow I don’t think they will. Looks like they are figuring out how to bury it
CRConrad 5y ago
You're confused about what the "case" is. The moderation team didn't publish the details of whatever shitty thing someone on the core team may have done because they don't matter. What they're resigning over is the fact that they can't do anything about it, because the core team claims not to be under the purview of their moderation. That problem would be the same whoever on the core team did whatever shitty thing, so the details are irrelevant. This is about processes and structures for handling incidents, not a single incident.
- CheezeIt 5y ago
  With what was quoted downthread, they impugned the reputation of the core team, maybe justly, without providing justification. They also haven’t made a case for why the core team needs to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    1) Not sure what you mean by "what was quoted downthread", but assuming it was the bit about [paraphrased] "take whatever anyone on the core team says with a large grain of salt": At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" -- whoever did whatever it was. They're just not saying who that was, so you can't know whom on the core team to trust. Which means that unless and until you do, you need to mistrust what any or all of them say(s). As soon as one realises how this logic works, one realises that this is (at least not intentionally!) impugning anyone's reputation, but just an unfortunate consequence of their trying to protect the anonymity of the involved. 2) Why should they have to make a case for that? If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?
    - CheezeIt 5y ago
      > Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason. Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. > If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline? That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design. > At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies. And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.

ziml77 5y ago

I don't know why any of us are judging all of this from nothing. The only pieces of information we have are that the moderation team left because of issues with the core team and that they think no one should trust the Rust core team. But I don't know why I should trust either side. I need a lot more info before concluding anything.

CheezeIt 5y ago
> and that they think no one should trust the Rust core team I don’t remember reading anything suggesting this, could you point out where you read this?
- ziml77 5y ago
  From the resignation letter: > 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. I should have been clear in my comment that it wasn’t about trust in general but just this situation
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    Okay, I didn’t remember that line. Thanks for the response.
  - rurban 5y ago
    From this you can easily conclude the reverse. We recommend that the broader Rust community and the Core team exercise extreme scepticism of any statement by the past and future Mod team claiming to illuminate the situation. Death by CoC.
killingtime74 5y ago
My thought is slightly different. When you're a lawyer representing someone that does illegal things (ongoing, not in the past) sometimes the only thing you can ethically do is quit. You can't reveal what is illegal due to privilege. Similarly here, they may not be able to reveal whatever is going wrong due to anti disparagement clause or threats of defamation. literally the only thing you can do is quit, which is what they did, which sends a very strong signal to outsiders.
- Someone 5y ago
  This _may_ also be similar to a lawyer who stops representing someone who the lawyer thinks does immoral things, with the two parties disagreeing about that. Without knowing details, I can’t judge who’s (more) right here. That strong signal _can_ be misused, and sometimes is misused. “You’re evil, but I’m not allowed to tell the world why” is something you can’t defend yourself against.
  - killingtime74 5y ago
    It's true except Rust core team can defend themselves by being transparent or allowing moderators to speak. These aren't national security secrets. In the lawyer case you almost always believe the quitting lawyer, they are just doing their job, it must be pretty bad for them to need to quit.

killingtime74 5y ago

It's the defence team quit In the analogy due to their access to internal Communication which they cannot reveal. probably under threat of anti-disparagement or defamation. Cannot see it as not presenting their case, have to read between their lines. Of course the Rust core team could be fully transparent and release everything to us outsiders to judge, but somehow I don’t think they will. Looks like they are figuring out how to bury it

CRConrad 5y ago

You're confused about what the "case" is. The moderation team didn't publish the details of whatever shitty thing someone on the core team may have done because they don't matter. What they're resigning over is the fact that they can't do anything about it, because the core team claims not to be under the purview of their moderation. That problem would be the same whoever on the core team did whatever shitty thing, so the details are irrelevant. This is about processes and structures for handling incidents, not a single incident.

CheezeIt 5y ago
With what was quoted downthread, they impugned the reputation of the core team, maybe justly, without providing justification. They also haven’t made a case for why the core team needs to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  1) Not sure what you mean by "what was quoted downthread", but assuming it was the bit about [paraphrased] "take whatever anyone on the core team says with a large grain of salt": At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" -- whoever did whatever it was. They're just not saying who that was, so you can't know whom on the core team to trust. Which means that unless and until you do, you need to mistrust what any or all of them say(s). As soon as one realises how this logic works, one realises that this is (at least not intentionally!) impugning anyone's reputation, but just an unfortunate consequence of their trying to protect the anonymity of the involved. 2) Why should they have to make a case for that? If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?
  - CheezeIt 5y ago
    > Why should they have to make a case for that? I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason. Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made. > If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline? That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design. > At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of" I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies. And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.