7 ms·

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 l

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?
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."? My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Amazon is the lead on multiple teams, and chose not elect a new executive directory while letting the prior one go? I think not. Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. What bearing does the "they've marginalized the core team" statement have on them that renders them being unworthy to assess? > What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. That exact same tweet you reference notes they've decided not to have an Executive Director. Maybe if people weren't ignoring that because of some later statement that might get some attention.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior Its not ignoring! Its asking people to say what the actual problem is, beyond just that Amazon has people on a couple committees. Have these committees done anything bad? Is amazon pushing for features that people don't like? Will some future bad thing happen because of this? What is the value statement here! > Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. Ok, and the problem is that nobody is actually saying why some things are bad or not. > that might get some attention. I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. I could make a dozen different guesses as to why you, or others, think there is a problem. But I shouldn't have to do that. It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.
vjust 5y ago
Well he's one guy, against the industry behemoth. Give him some credit, rather than big brother. Even if he errs. I'd not buy any rebuttal by the thousand-pound gorilla at face value

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?
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."? My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Amazon is the lead on multiple teams, and chose not elect a new executive directory while letting the prior one go? I think not. Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. What bearing does the "they've marginalized the core team" statement have on them that renders them being unworthy to assess? > What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. That exact same tweet you reference notes they've decided not to have an Executive Director. Maybe if people weren't ignoring that because of some later statement that might get some attention.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior Its not ignoring! Its asking people to say what the actual problem is, beyond just that Amazon has people on a couple committees. Have these committees done anything bad? Is amazon pushing for features that people don't like? Will some future bad thing happen because of this? What is the value statement here! > Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. Ok, and the problem is that nobody is actually saying why some things are bad or not. > that might get some attention. I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. I could make a dozen different guesses as to why you, or others, think there is a problem. But I shouldn't have to do that. It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.

vjust 5y ago

Well he's one guy, against the industry behemoth. Give him some credit, rather than big brother. Even if he errs. I'd not buy any rebuttal by the thousand-pound gorilla at face value