I’m working with the same set of blogposts, hackmds, and tweets as everyone else. It seems that JeanHyde went public with their experience instead of opening a

I’m working with the same set of blogposts, hackmds, and tweets as everyone else. It seems that JeanHyde went public with their experience instead of opening a dialogue with their advocate (JT) or core team member (Josh). JeanHyde says as much in their original post - assuming that the Rust Project had some sort of due process, JH didn’t want to legitimize that process. As Josh’s post points out, there is no legitimate due process and the Rust project is actively a mess right now. > suffering further harm This type of language is actively muddying the conversation. Nobody suffered and nobody was harmed here. JH might’ve been upset and confused, but there was no “torture” to “suffer.” The only damage here is everyone leaving the project. In an alternative world, this would’ve been solved in one 30 minute meeting and nobody would’ve heard a thing. > Do you feel entitled… Yes, I do. I’ve payed my dues within the rust community, I’ve bet my career on Rust, I’m building a company that’s actively working to improve Rust. The project is a once-in-generation chance to replace C/C++ and I personally don’t think leadership is taking that seriously. It doesn’t help when speakers like JH choose to go public instead of trying to smooth things over in a sensible manner. I get it, JH expected some sort of legitimate leadership, but now with all the context, I don’t see how you could believe anyone leaving the project or canceling efforts is 1) good or 2) going to solve any problems in the long term.