3 ms·
> as of today, I can tell you that all the good people who could’ve left haven’t yet, and that all the people who should’ve resigned, haven’t yet And from Mast
by starkparker 3y ago
> as of today, I can tell you that all the good people who could’ve left haven’t yet, and that all the people who should’ve resigned, haven’t yet
And from Mastodon: https://hachyderm.io/@fasterthanlime/110448658671548833 https://hachyderm.io/@fasterthanlime/110448658671548833
> I was in a position of knowing some things yet not being able to do anything about it. It was untenable. I think the people responsible should name themselves, or be named by folks they work with directly.
What reasons are there to announce that one knows who should've resigned, in an announcement that refuses to identify them? Is it legal? Fear of retribution? Some internal Rust community process? Something I'm missing that the authors of these farewell letters assume everyone who follows Rust already knows?
Why be transparent over the lack of transparency but keep the problem intentionally and loudly opaque, rather than going the other way around and whistleblowing?
What benefit to the project does publicly quitting without explaining why provide?
- coldtea 3y ago>What reasons are there to announce that one knows who should've resigned, in an announcement that refuses to identify them? Is it legal? Fear of retribution? Some internal Rust community process? Something I'm missing that the authors of these farewell letters assume everyone who follows Rust already knows? That it's not meant to point fingers to particular individuals ("X is bad, and should regign but hasn't") or serve as news coverage, but just describe the sittuation ("bad actors are still here")? >Why be transparent over the lack of transparency but keep the problem intentionally and loudly opaque, rather than going the other way around and whistleblowing? Tact?