5 ms·

>You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon Or I can trust neither, and

>You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon Or I can trust neither, and expect that both sides act like adults and actually state their concerns and accusations rather than vague "just trust me, you should be upset" statements. Whipping everyone into a furor with vague concerns without actually giving enough information to address those concerns is the worst form of "discussion", if you can even call it that.

LanceH 5y ago
I said something similar and got downvoted. I should have been more clear that posting this to HN as though it is meaningful is the problem. There is no substance to the tweets (it's his twitter account, go wild), and really has no business being here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
marricks 5y ago
He called out specific things and had a tweet which was pretty vague about some bad behavior. If you want to focus on that and imply it's childish you are the one distracting from discussing more important issues. That's probably why takes like that get downvoted. --- From the comments Steve has made it sounds like Amazon effectively has control of Rust not only because of their large involvement but also because a strange set of governing circumstances. I guess I can see how if he led with that it might be clearer why all the concern, guess he didn't want to spell it out so directly and point fingers.
- secuthro22 5y ago
  He said in his first tweet that he wants to have a "serious conversation", then goes on to list three grievances: that Amazon has a lot of involvement in Rust leadership, that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) and that Amazon "has done some other dirty shit" (but no details). That's two out of three grievances that have no substance whatsoever. You cannot have a serious conversation about these things if there is not more detail. I'm not distracting from anything, I'm asking Steve to either step up and discuss these things as he stated he wants to do, or he needs to stop distracting from serious issues with these snarky one-liners. If you include something like that in a tweet, you should expect to follow up on it. It's ridiculous and disingenuous to tweet something like that and then say "well I don't actually want to talk about that and it's your fault for not reading my mind to know that". >That's probably why takes like that get downvoted. My comment currently has 50 upvotes. I don't think I'm the only person saying this.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    I think not adding details was a warning to Amazon to step up on their front or he will indeed 'air out dirty laundry', but it does feel disingenuous given we're asked to support him based on his word (and history of rustc contributions) alone.
  - marricks 5y ago
    I think you bring up good points and I was wrong saying it was only slightly unclear. I don’t fault him as he didn’t post it here but it is definitely not fully clear from reading it what’s going on.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    >> decided to not have a Rust Foundation ED, meaning Chair has outsized power in the Foundation > that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) That seems like details to me. It's also extrapolated on elsewhere here. > That's two out of three grievances that have no substance whatsoever. You cannot have a serious conversation about these things if there is not more detail. Actually, you could, just by ignoring the things you don't see evidence of and focusing on the points that do, and assessing them based on merit. The messenger is irrelevant if the message is verifiable and is worth discussing. It's useful to call out points that seem to not be backed up, or be purposefully vague. It's not fine to use that as a reason to ignore other points because "you cannot have a serious conversation" when that's obviously not the case when it's not tried.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was the action that amazon did, to marginalize anyone? Did they say mean things about them? Did they have a meeting without them? Did they kick them off of a group? Did they create a feature roadmap, without getting the core teams feedback? Just say specifically what happened, with actual details, that describe exactly how someone was marginalize, and the consequences of that! > reason to ignore other points What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. But even that point is low on details. Have they used the board seat to do anything bad? Whats the concern?

LanceH 5y ago

I said something similar and got downvoted. I should have been more clear that posting this to HN as though it is meaningful is the problem. There is no substance to the tweets (it's his twitter account, go wild), and really has no business being here.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

marricks 5y ago

He called out specific things and had a tweet which was pretty vague about some bad behavior. If you want to focus on that and imply it's childish you are the one distracting from discussing more important issues. That's probably why takes like that get downvoted. --- From the comments Steve has made it sounds like Amazon effectively has control of Rust not only because of their large involvement but also because a strange set of governing circumstances. I guess I can see how if he led with that it might be clearer why all the concern, guess he didn't want to spell it out so directly and point fingers.

secuthro22 5y ago
He said in his first tweet that he wants to have a "serious conversation", then goes on to list three grievances: that Amazon has a lot of involvement in Rust leadership, that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) and that Amazon "has done some other dirty shit" (but no details). That's two out of three grievances that have no substance whatsoever. You cannot have a serious conversation about these things if there is not more detail. I'm not distracting from anything, I'm asking Steve to either step up and discuss these things as he stated he wants to do, or he needs to stop distracting from serious issues with these snarky one-liners. If you include something like that in a tweet, you should expect to follow up on it. It's ridiculous and disingenuous to tweet something like that and then say "well I don't actually want to talk about that and it's your fault for not reading my mind to know that". >That's probably why takes like that get downvoted. My comment currently has 50 upvotes. I don't think I'm the only person saying this.
- judge2020 5y ago
  I think not adding details was a warning to Amazon to step up on their front or he will indeed 'air out dirty laundry', but it does feel disingenuous given we're asked to support him based on his word (and history of rustc contributions) alone.
- marricks 5y ago
  I think you bring up good points and I was wrong saying it was only slightly unclear. I don’t fault him as he didn’t post it here but it is definitely not fully clear from reading it what’s going on.
- kbenson 5y ago
  >> decided to not have a Rust Foundation ED, meaning Chair has outsized power in the Foundation > that Amazon "marginalized the core team" (but no details) That seems like details to me. It's also extrapolated on elsewhere here. > That's two out of three grievances that have no substance whatsoever. You cannot have a serious conversation about these things if there is not more detail. Actually, you could, just by ignoring the things you don't see evidence of and focusing on the points that do, and assessing them based on merit. The messenger is irrelevant if the message is verifiable and is worth discussing. It's useful to call out points that seem to not be backed up, or be purposefully vague. It's not fine to use that as a reason to ignore other points because "you cannot have a serious conversation" when that's obviously not the case when it's not tried.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was the action that amazon did, to marginalize anyone? Did they say mean things about them? Did they have a meeting without them? Did they kick them off of a group? Did they create a feature roadmap, without getting the core teams feedback? Just say specifically what happened, with actual details, that describe exactly how someone was marginalize, and the consequences of that! > reason to ignore other points What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. But even that point is low on details. Have they used the board seat to do anything bad? Whats the concern?