7 ms·
Your phrasing is interesting: "visible drama". Which suggests it would be "better" for Rust if it covered these things up :). Obviously that would be hard to do
by ChrisSD 3y ago
Your phrasing is interesting: "visible drama". Which suggests it would be "better" for Rust if it covered these things up :). Obviously that would be hard to do at the moment. It's actions are fairly open and there is a very keen interest in "drama" from everyone from HN to popular YouTubers who can boost the signal.
Personally I think some amount of immediate drama is necessary to force positive change. Better than many orgs that keep this kind of thing behind closed doors (and somebody maybe writes a blog post about it years later).
- denotational 3y agoThat wasn’t my intention, but I see how it could be read that way. I have colleagues on WG21 and there’s a degree of drama there too, but it’s mostly behind closed doors so it doesn’t tend to impact people’s view of the language too much. Open discourse can certainly be a virtue, but when on first glance it looks like there is constant bickering and poor leadership, it tends to put people off. Really my intended message is that people (probably the Rust Project in this case, although I’m not really close enough to have a valid opinion) should consider their actions a lot more carefully on account of the fact that everything is visible. Visible drama is what puts people off; avoiding the drama is the best approach rather than hiding it, but fundamentally what matters is whether people want to use the project or not.