4 ms·

> going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on othe

> going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed. In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying. JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled. > Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence? Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mort96 3y ago
I have not accused anyone of sabotaging his work.
- wubalubadubdub 3y ago
  > The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. Here you are doing just that. You don't have evidence for this claim. All that happened was that his talk got downgraded. That's it.
  - mort96 3y ago
    The talk got downgraded due to one high-up person's serious issues with the talk, that person's concerns weren't made public, the identity of the person who had the concerns wasn't made public. Those are the facts. (Source: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco-explained https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco...; ctrl+f concerns) I admit that I assumed that those concerns were technical (i.e "issues with the direction of the compile time proposal"). I don't have evidence for that, because the concerns weren't made public. Anyway, you're the one who's choosing to view their actions as sabotage of his work, I don't think I would characterize it like that. EDIT: I want to add, it's possible that this person who had great concerns was dtolnay and that the concerns were simply what he outlines in this post (essentially just that it wasn't ready to be featured in a keynote; source: https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed3060b96 https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed306... ctrl+f "I expressed forceful skepticism"). I hope that's not the case, since that's a really weak reason to retract a keynote invitation weeks after it was given, and seems like it could be easily solved with some disclaimers... but we can't know, since, again, nobody has publicly disclosed what the concerns were which caused the talk to be downgraded.
    - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
      That article you linked is pretty biased. Having said that, you cannot imply that there was a conspiracy to stop JeanHeyd's work in the rust leadership, and then say that I'm claiming sabotage. > The problem is, this isn't "drama in the Rust community", this is repeated gross incompetence and malevolence spanning years from the very top of Rust leadership. There you are again ascribing motivations you don't know to the rust leadership. On the topic of having a keynote downgraded, this happens all the time. Speakers also get disinvited. What is atypical here, is having a personal army to relentless harass others online, force people to resign, etc. A talk got downgraded. He wasn't disinvited. His honour wasn't disabused. Only a person with an insanely inflated ego would go on to write some many blog posts about it, demanding the heads of others.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

mort96 3y ago

I have not accused anyone of sabotaging his work.

wubalubadubdub 3y ago
> The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. Here you are doing just that. You don't have evidence for this claim. All that happened was that his talk got downgraded. That's it.
- mort96 3y ago
  The talk got downgraded due to one high-up person's serious issues with the talk, that person's concerns weren't made public, the identity of the person who had the concerns wasn't made public. Those are the facts. (Source: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco-explained https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco...; ctrl+f concerns) I admit that I assumed that those concerns were technical (i.e "issues with the direction of the compile time proposal"). I don't have evidence for that, because the concerns weren't made public. Anyway, you're the one who's choosing to view their actions as sabotage of his work, I don't think I would characterize it like that. EDIT: I want to add, it's possible that this person who had great concerns was dtolnay and that the concerns were simply what he outlines in this post (essentially just that it wasn't ready to be featured in a keynote; source: https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed3060b96 https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed306... ctrl+f "I expressed forceful skepticism"). I hope that's not the case, since that's a really weak reason to retract a keynote invitation weeks after it was given, and seems like it could be easily solved with some disclaimers... but we can't know, since, again, nobody has publicly disclosed what the concerns were which caused the talk to be downgraded.
  - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
    That article you linked is pretty biased. Having said that, you cannot imply that there was a conspiracy to stop JeanHeyd's work in the rust leadership, and then say that I'm claiming sabotage. > The problem is, this isn't "drama in the Rust community", this is repeated gross incompetence and malevolence spanning years from the very top of Rust leadership. There you are again ascribing motivations you don't know to the rust leadership. On the topic of having a keynote downgraded, this happens all the time. Speakers also get disinvited. What is atypical here, is having a personal army to relentless harass others online, force people to resign, etc. A talk got downgraded. He wasn't disinvited. His honour wasn't disabused. Only a person with an insanely inflated ego would go on to write some many blog posts about it, demanding the heads of others.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]