3 ms·

these things keep happening and it shows a deeper problem with rust leadership and unaccountability. Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ag

these things keep happening and it shows a deeper problem with rust leadership and unaccountability. Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago (which was also not the first Rust Drama), every community member - from speakers to organizers and regular language users - is confused, frustrated, feeling unappreciated with very slow official response and clarification. I don't want witch hunting, I understand some of the people involved are volunteers, but if there is a drama every month, someone is doing something wrong and all we see from the outside is that someone acts shady and there is no consequences. I'm not saying they are evil people, I don't hate anyone, I just think that they should do something else with their precious volunteer time. It's not a witch hunt to show someone the door.

Ygg2 3y ago
> Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago I think those are different. Rust trademark policy is more a case of miscommunication, while this seems more deliberate. Rust Foundation iirc made a draft statement but rather than saying "We'll take community feedback into consideration" went with a much more vague "We'll might take this into consideration". At least that's my impressions. It was fairly bad trademark policy forbidding crates from using rust and cargo. `cargo x` 99% of the time was some cargo plugin.
- FranksTV 3y ago
  Anyone who's written long contracts know you start with some boilerplate that contains a bunch of stuff and gradually whittle it down till it's just what you need. The error they made was assuming people would understand that process.
lost_tourist 3y ago
It really seems from what I've read over time, there are a tight core oligarchy of 4 or 5 people who think they are the end all be all of decision making and everyone else be damned. They will defend each other against all outsiders. I've seen this on other committees, it's never pretty when it finally comes crashing down around their heads. I hope this doesn't continue to tarnish the reputation of rust as a great language to learn and expand upon.

Ygg2 3y ago

> Just like with the trademark policy fiasco just a month ago I think those are different. Rust trademark policy is more a case of miscommunication, while this seems more deliberate. Rust Foundation iirc made a draft statement but rather than saying "We'll take community feedback into consideration" went with a much more vague "We'll might take this into consideration". At least that's my impressions. It was fairly bad trademark policy forbidding crates from using rust and cargo. `cargo x` 99% of the time was some cargo plugin.

FranksTV 3y ago
Anyone who's written long contracts know you start with some boilerplate that contains a bunch of stuff and gradually whittle it down till it's just what you need. The error they made was assuming people would understand that process.

lost_tourist 3y ago

It really seems from what I've read over time, there are a tight core oligarchy of 4 or 5 people who think they are the end all be all of decision making and everyone else be damned. They will defend each other against all outsiders. I've seen this on other committees, it's never pretty when it finally comes crashing down around their heads. I hope this doesn't continue to tarnish the reputation of rust as a great language to learn and expand upon.