> Monopoly rings hollow when it comes to a community open source project. Last I heard `open source` was used to refer to code not projects. Every project has

> Monopoly rings hollow when it comes to a community open source project. Last I heard `open source` was used to refer to code not projects. Every project has its "decision makers" (no matter the structure or titles) that have the power to dictate the direction and vision. You can literally see it every day in many projects, not trying to single out Rust or anything. The power is not distributed evenly, not even within the elite inner circle. There's no 'together as a community` when it's followed by a clause like `we need to follow the one direction (X) has set`. What power does `the community` exactly have? to open a PR and get denied? is to fork? Can the community ellect leaders and change course? You said it yourself, anyone that want to have their voice heard, they have to climb up the ladder and join the inner circle. You're descriping `Power elite` and not `community`. Even forks don't work in real life, what happens is the project usually die slowly and everyone move to the next thing. I'm not dismissing the structure itself, it's a good pragmatic approach, it's just that you're twisting and polishing it. In short: You: Everyone is welcome. No need to fragment. Rust is run by community. Rust's governance: We rule. We also pick any new members. Community doesn't have much say about anything. So pursuing efforts like the one in the post is exactly how the community is empowered and what might enable Rust to survive any challenges it faces in the future. People doing their own things is how the open source ecosystem began and continue to flourish. So can you just welcome their effort and let them be?