5 ms·

Why does anyone actually care about this? So much drama about a guys talk getting downgraded? The language being used in this whole controversy suggests somethi

by smabie 3y ago

Why does anyone actually care about this? So much drama about a guys talk getting downgraded? The language being used in this whole controversy suggests something actually meaningful happened, when in reality it's just completely banal.

Waterluvian 3y ago
I don’t think this issue should matter to everyone. But it matters to some in the broader community.
blackhaz 3y ago
[flagged]
- dralley 3y ago
  Please don't try to flip this around on JeanHeyd, they've done nothing wrong here.
greydius 3y ago
Mediocrity thrives on drama.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sho_hn 3y ago
This is a volunteer-driven open source community that operates in the relative open, and occasionally you will see how the sausage is made, or some dirty laundry. It's getting attention because that community is producing something popular with a lot of stakeholders, who are not active in the organization but worried about its health and stability. It's also not completely banal. Designing durable non-profits, governance structures, decision-making processes, policies, etc. is quite complex. You can to some extend evaluate your success by how much public drama you get to avoid. :-) That makes it a case study of interest. (I've helped run one of the major FOSS orgs for about a decade or so.)
- dralley 3y ago
  It bears keeping in mind that plenty of other organizations have the same drama, but more hidden from public view. Rust is in the awkward spot of being primarily community driven unlike Go or Java, and also having that community operate mostly in public channels unlike C++. That is ultimately for the best, but it exposes a lot more "mess" to the public.
  - Conscat 3y ago
    C++ language evolution is developed mostly in public. We don't get to see WG21 meetings, but we see most of the emails (https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/ https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/), almost all of the TS proposal papers (everything except for very early drafts), and notable meetings still have multiple recaps from various participants in addition the the Meeting Minutes publicly outlining what these discussions are about, and we see (afaik) all of the formal votes that the committee members take (although the votes are anonymized). Plus a considerable amount of the conversation happens on GitHub, and many paper authors ask for feedback on Reddit and chat clients. Also, the standards work is only a portion of C++ language evolution. Clang RFCs are public and anyone can provide feedback, the GCC mailing list is public, and both of their issue trackers (which include feature requests) are public.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  We're not talking about mishandling sponsorship funds or unilateral decisions made on technical architecture, we're talking about time slots at a technical conference. There's nothing here but some beef between PhD and a yet-unknown member of rust leadership. This is high school stuff, the wider community should not elevate this or read these tea leaves.
  - Kinrany 3y ago
    That's a mischaracterization. The issue is that the yet-unknown member of rust leadership violated the norms, and neither of the two teams involved were able to do anything about it. The problem is not the beef but the way it was handled by the system as a whole.
arek_nawo 3y ago
It might be overblown but still - the guy was invited first-hand to have a keynote and then told that's not happening a short while later. Whatever the reasoning was, the whole thing was very poorly handled. It should have been either throughly discussed before the invite - flip-flopping is the worst-case scenario.
cyber_kinetist 3y ago
Because of this, one of the major proposals for a better compile-time reflection system in Rust is not going to get developed any further. A languages thrives when enough talented people are developing it further. We are seeing some of that talent going away because of these kinds of drama.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cbgha 3y ago
Because usually this is an indication of structural problems. This is very well just the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone has seen enough committees that run projects in a dictatorial style while hiding behind a CoC. We don't know what is the case here, but it is useful information for anyone who thought about contributing. People care less about drama that inside info.
coldtea 3y ago
>Why does anyone actually care about this? Because it sets the tone of discussion and contribution, the amount of respect contributors get, and the kind of behind the scene games played. >So much drama about a guys talk getting downgraded? Yes, because it sets the tone of discussion and contribution, the amount of respect contributors get, and the kind of behind the scene games played. Perhaps it needs to happen to some personally before they can see it as the insult and unfair back-stabbing that it is.
ufmace 3y ago
All the breathless language about how terrible this supposedly is really turns me off. It seems like every person involved in this debacle is being ridiculously childish
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tsimionescu 3y ago
The fact that the effect was minor (a talk getting downgraded) is not an excuse for the magnitude of the procedural problem. If a publicly voted decision by the Rust leadership committee can be undone by a single member, than that seriously calls into question that the committee has any real power.
ofcourseyoudo 3y ago
I imagine for a volunteer FOSS project events that drive talent away from and negative feeling towards the project matter.
CRConrad 3y ago
Only if you focus on the ephemera and refuse to see the actual issue: The keynote becoming un-keynoted is just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem, that this tip only serves to reveal, is in how it became un-keynoted. Rust is supposed to be run by a committee or group of some sort, apparently called “Rust Leadership” something. This ostensible Leadership had approved the keynote as such. Then some individual(s?) went behind the committee's back and un-keynoted it. That they did this – that they were even able to do it – shows that they're the actual leaders of the Rust project, not the committee that is claimed to be. Not being able to see that that's a pretty big deal is... Weird, to say the least. Feels like one would have to work pretty hard at not wanting to see it.

by smabie 3y ago

Waterluvian 3y ago

I don’t think this issue should matter to everyone. But it matters to some in the broader community.

blackhaz 3y ago

[flagged]

dralley 3y ago
Please don't try to flip this around on JeanHeyd, they've done nothing wrong here.

greydius 3y ago

Mediocrity thrives on drama.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sho_hn 3y ago

This is a volunteer-driven open source community that operates in the relative open, and occasionally you will see how the sausage is made, or some dirty laundry. It's getting attention because that community is producing something popular with a lot of stakeholders, who are not active in the organization but worried about its health and stability. It's also not completely banal. Designing durable non-profits, governance structures, decision-making processes, policies, etc. is quite complex. You can to some extend evaluate your success by how much public drama you get to avoid. :-) That makes it a case study of interest. (I've helped run one of the major FOSS orgs for about a decade or so.)

dralley 3y ago
It bears keeping in mind that plenty of other organizations have the same drama, but more hidden from public view. Rust is in the awkward spot of being primarily community driven unlike Go or Java, and also having that community operate mostly in public channels unlike C++. That is ultimately for the best, but it exposes a lot more "mess" to the public.
- Conscat 3y ago
  C++ language evolution is developed mostly in public. We don't get to see WG21 meetings, but we see most of the emails (https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/ https://lists.isocpp.org/std-proposals/), almost all of the TS proposal papers (everything except for very early drafts), and notable meetings still have multiple recaps from various participants in addition the the Meeting Minutes publicly outlining what these discussions are about, and we see (afaik) all of the formal votes that the committee members take (although the votes are anonymized). Plus a considerable amount of the conversation happens on GitHub, and many paper authors ask for feedback on Reddit and chat clients. Also, the standards work is only a portion of C++ language evolution. Clang RFCs are public and anyone can provide feedback, the GCC mailing list is public, and both of their issue trackers (which include feature requests) are public.
nickelpro 3y ago
We're not talking about mishandling sponsorship funds or unilateral decisions made on technical architecture, we're talking about time slots at a technical conference. There's nothing here but some beef between PhD and a yet-unknown member of rust leadership. This is high school stuff, the wider community should not elevate this or read these tea leaves.
- Kinrany 3y ago
  That's a mischaracterization. The issue is that the yet-unknown member of rust leadership violated the norms, and neither of the two teams involved were able to do anything about it. The problem is not the beef but the way it was handled by the system as a whole.

arek_nawo 3y ago

It might be overblown but still - the guy was invited first-hand to have a keynote and then told that's not happening a short while later. Whatever the reasoning was, the whole thing was very poorly handled. It should have been either throughly discussed before the invite - flip-flopping is the worst-case scenario.

cyber_kinetist 3y ago

Because of this, one of the major proposals for a better compile-time reflection system in Rust is not going to get developed any further. A languages thrives when enough talented people are developing it further. We are seeing some of that talent going away because of these kinds of drama.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cbgha 3y ago

Because usually this is an indication of structural problems. This is very well just the straw that broke the camel's back. Everyone has seen enough committees that run projects in a dictatorial style while hiding behind a CoC. We don't know what is the case here, but it is useful information for anyone who thought about contributing. People care less about drama that inside info.

coldtea 3y ago

>Why does anyone actually care about this? Because it sets the tone of discussion and contribution, the amount of respect contributors get, and the kind of behind the scene games played. >So much drama about a guys talk getting downgraded? Yes, because it sets the tone of discussion and contribution, the amount of respect contributors get, and the kind of behind the scene games played. Perhaps it needs to happen to some personally before they can see it as the insult and unfair back-stabbing that it is.

ufmace 3y ago

All the breathless language about how terrible this supposedly is really turns me off. It seems like every person involved in this debacle is being ridiculously childish

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tsimionescu 3y ago

The fact that the effect was minor (a talk getting downgraded) is not an excuse for the magnitude of the procedural problem. If a publicly voted decision by the Rust leadership committee can be undone by a single member, than that seriously calls into question that the committee has any real power.

ofcourseyoudo 3y ago

I imagine for a volunteer FOSS project events that drive talent away from and negative feeling towards the project matter.

CRConrad 3y ago

Only if you focus on the ephemera and refuse to see the actual issue: The keynote becoming un-keynoted is just the tip of the iceberg. The real problem, that this tip only serves to reveal, is in how it became un-keynoted. Rust is supposed to be run by a committee or group of some sort, apparently called “Rust Leadership” something. This ostensible Leadership had approved the keynote as such. Then some individual(s?) went behind the committee's back and un-keynoted it. That they did this – that they were even able to do it – shows that they're the actual leaders of the Rust project, not the committee that is claimed to be. Not being able to see that that's a pretty big deal is... Weird, to say the least. Feels like one would have to work pretty hard at not wanting to see it.