4 ms·

Yes, and? This sounds like a case of clumsiness, not malice. By all means, withdraw, but why the need to publicly shame?

XAMPPRocky 3y ago
Whether it’s malice or clumsiness isn’t relevant, it’s poor communication and process, which is the responsibility of leadership. The project leadership has continuously failed in these areas, and there has only been an effort to improve those things when they’ve been publicly called out. Without people openly communicating leadership failures, problems have often been ignored and maligned.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Yes, it is indeed their responsibility. It is also a minor thing. People sometimes drop the ball, sometimes repeatedly, especially in committees. Public shaming is generally reserved for egregious acts, and so needs to be justified. Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit. To be clear: I am willing to entertain the accusation that the Rust team is toxic, but that’s a case that needs to be … you know … actually argued.
  - XAMPPRocky 3y ago
    People are free to speak their mind, they don’t have to justify that to you or anyone else. > Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit. Feels like self-projecting given how much you’re commenting in multiple threads to say “it’s not a big deal”, I don’t think someone who thinks it’s not a big deal would comment and try to argue so much if they actually thought it was.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      Like it or not, there are social norms, one of which is that public accusations need to be substantiated. That is, I think, a reasonable expectation.
      - XAMPPRocky 3y ago
        Which part do you think is not substantiated? They did write about compile-time reflection, their talk was part of the conference[1], and now they’re not doing the talk. That’s enough to me take what they say at face value, especially now that in the wake of this there have been resignations in the leadership. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230523045330/https://rustconf.com/schedule https://web.archive.org/web/20230523045330/https://rustconf....
      - aaomidi 3y ago
        To me I think this is fully reasonable what they’re doing. So how do you wanna settle the difference in social norms? Who died and made you the gatekeeper of social norms?
Brian_K_White 3y ago
Why not? Why must they shut up? Do you accuse them of lying? Short of that I don't see why they shouldn't report all of this if it bugs them and it's factual. If the Rust foundation doesn't want stories about jerking someone around, maybe they can not jerk people around?
jemmyw 3y ago
I thought it was ok. Explained what happened from their point of view so they didn't need to answer everyone individually. It sounds like they gave plenty of opportunities for the organizers to not have the talk and they waited to the last minute and even then just were not up front about what was going on. It didn't really need to be posted on hn, surely this reposting and amplifying is a worse thing than just stating what happened.

XAMPPRocky 3y ago

Whether it’s malice or clumsiness isn’t relevant, it’s poor communication and process, which is the responsibility of leadership. The project leadership has continuously failed in these areas, and there has only been an effort to improve those things when they’ve been publicly called out. Without people openly communicating leadership failures, problems have often been ignored and maligned.

omginternets 3y ago
Yes, it is indeed their responsibility. It is also a minor thing. People sometimes drop the ball, sometimes repeatedly, especially in committees. Public shaming is generally reserved for egregious acts, and so needs to be justified. Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit. To be clear: I am willing to entertain the accusation that the Rust team is toxic, but that’s a case that needs to be … you know … actually argued.
- XAMPPRocky 3y ago
  People are free to speak their mind, they don’t have to justify that to you or anyone else. > Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit. Feels like self-projecting given how much you’re commenting in multiple threads to say “it’s not a big deal”, I don’t think someone who thinks it’s not a big deal would comment and try to argue so much if they actually thought it was.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    Like it or not, there are social norms, one of which is that public accusations need to be substantiated. That is, I think, a reasonable expectation.
    - XAMPPRocky 3y ago
      Which part do you think is not substantiated? They did write about compile-time reflection, their talk was part of the conference[1], and now they’re not doing the talk. That’s enough to me take what they say at face value, especially now that in the wake of this there have been resignations in the leadership. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230523045330/https://rustconf.com/schedule https://web.archive.org/web/20230523045330/https://rustconf....
    - aaomidi 3y ago
      To me I think this is fully reasonable what they’re doing. So how do you wanna settle the difference in social norms? Who died and made you the gatekeeper of social norms?

Brian_K_White 3y ago

Why not? Why must they shut up? Do you accuse them of lying? Short of that I don't see why they shouldn't report all of this if it bugs them and it's factual. If the Rust foundation doesn't want stories about jerking someone around, maybe they can not jerk people around?

jemmyw 3y ago

I thought it was ok. Explained what happened from their point of view so they didn't need to answer everyone individually. It sounds like they gave plenty of opportunities for the organizers to not have the talk and they waited to the last minute and even then just were not up front about what was going on. It didn't really need to be posted on hn, surely this reposting and amplifying is a worse thing than just stating what happened.