4 ms·

We're not talking about mishandling sponsorship funds or unilateral decisions made on technical architecture, we're talking about time slots at a technical conf

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.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  Norms about scheduling a tech conference. Who cares That rust leadership person is a dickhead. Great. End of story. Sometimes in life people are dicks, they eat your sandwich from the employee fridge even though it was clearly labeled as yours. That makes that individual a jerk, not the wider organization an Evil Empire.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    You keep asking: > Who cares A: Obviously enough people to make this a rather lively HN discussion. And to make it somewhat prominent news in the tech sphere in general. So, quite a lot of people. Which makes one wonder why exactly you are repeatedly trying to minimise it with this dismissive “who cares”? One can't help but wonder if it is because you have some personal stake here that you don't want people scrutinizing too thoroughly.
mort96 3y ago
It's not "some beef between ThePhD and a yet-unknown member of Rust leadership", that makes it sound like it goes both way. It's a yet-unknown member of Rust leadership who apparently has a problem with ThePhD, but doesn't want to explain what that problem is, doesn't even want to make their identity known to ThePhD, and silently circumvents the normal decision-making process of the Rust Project to block ThePhD's work from making progress. That... is a problem.
- nickelpro 3y ago
  Maybe PhD flipped them off in an intersection, who cares! It doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant to the wider technical community. We'll never know and we shouldn't want to. This shouldn't have escalated past some emails about "what gives", but because some of the people involved have two speed grievance meters (none and crisis) we get to watch this soap opera play out. Rust leadership person is probably a dickhead, great, lots of people are dickheads. I hope their friends say mean things about them when they leave the table at group lunches.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    Way to miss the point. The point isn't the keynote / non-keynote itself, it's how it went from one to the other, and what that says about the state of the Rust project. > Rust leadership person is probably a dickhead, great, lots of people are dickheads. The point is, Rust isn't supposed to have a “leadership person”; it's supposed to be run by a group of people. The fact that some (as you so correctly conclude) dickhead is able to circumvent that, and in effect usurp de facto leadership (at least on this issue), shows that Rust’s leadership process isn't working as it is supposed to. It's hard to conceive of how extremely narrow a view one must take on this “soap opera”, in order not to see that what it shows is actually a pretty big deal. Squinting really hard, aren't ya?

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.

nickelpro 3y ago
Norms about scheduling a tech conference. Who cares That rust leadership person is a dickhead. Great. End of story. Sometimes in life people are dicks, they eat your sandwich from the employee fridge even though it was clearly labeled as yours. That makes that individual a jerk, not the wider organization an Evil Empire.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  You keep asking: > Who cares A: Obviously enough people to make this a rather lively HN discussion. And to make it somewhat prominent news in the tech sphere in general. So, quite a lot of people. Which makes one wonder why exactly you are repeatedly trying to minimise it with this dismissive “who cares”? One can't help but wonder if it is because you have some personal stake here that you don't want people scrutinizing too thoroughly.

mort96 3y ago

It's not "some beef between ThePhD and a yet-unknown member of Rust leadership", that makes it sound like it goes both way. It's a yet-unknown member of Rust leadership who apparently has a problem with ThePhD, but doesn't want to explain what that problem is, doesn't even want to make their identity known to ThePhD, and silently circumvents the normal decision-making process of the Rust Project to block ThePhD's work from making progress. That... is a problem.

nickelpro 3y ago
Maybe PhD flipped them off in an intersection, who cares! It doesn't matter, it's completely irrelevant to the wider technical community. We'll never know and we shouldn't want to. This shouldn't have escalated past some emails about "what gives", but because some of the people involved have two speed grievance meters (none and crisis) we get to watch this soap opera play out. Rust leadership person is probably a dickhead, great, lots of people are dickheads. I hope their friends say mean things about them when they leave the table at group lunches.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  Way to miss the point. The point isn't the keynote / non-keynote itself, it's how it went from one to the other, and what that says about the state of the Rust project. > Rust leadership person is probably a dickhead, great, lots of people are dickheads. The point is, Rust isn't supposed to have a “leadership person”; it's supposed to be run by a group of people. The fact that some (as you so correctly conclude) dickhead is able to circumvent that, and in effect usurp de facto leadership (at least on this issue), shows that Rust’s leadership process isn't working as it is supposed to. It's hard to conceive of how extremely narrow a view one must take on this “soap opera”, in order not to see that what it shows is actually a pretty big deal. Squinting really hard, aren't ya?