> Why is this discourse happening in public? Because that's the appropriate scope to discuss what the moderation team wanted to start a discussion about: Proce

> Why is this discourse happening in public? Because that's the appropriate scope to discuss what the moderation team wanted to start a discussion about: Processes and structures. > They want to use public opinion to bring reforms to the Rust governance but not divulge any details? What they said was basically "Someone did something shitty, we wanted to clean up the discussion, but couldn't because of the current structure where the core team isn't | doesn't see itself as being under any obligation to listen to the moderation team". Those are all the "details" needed for the subject of the discussion, namely processes and structures. The details of the original "shitty thing" are irrelevant; the same (lack of appropriate) processes and structures applies to any such incident involving the core team. This all seems pretty self-evident to me; I'm dumbfounded by how many commenters here on HN can't seem to grasp this fundamental but utterly simple difference. Your quote from the subreddit only shows that the moderators there do get it (no wonder, being partly the same people), and are therefore (quite properly IMO) trying to quell speculation about the (irrelevant!) "original shitty thing". It shouldn't be so hard to see that there's absolutely nothing wrong with that either.