by SmileyKeith on 5/28/23, 5:46 AM with 783 comments
by junon on 5/28/23, 9:45 AM
Someone is an expert in this field.
They're asked to speak at RustConf after a leadership vote.
They've also written an article about reflection in Rust - a purely technical thing that is already pretty widely disliked conceptually. (EDIT: the talk was about this, but it's also compile time reflection and came with the usual disclaimer that it was not representative of any of the Rust team's viewpoints or support)
Rust members were "uncomfortable" with this purely technical viewpoint - not their behavior, personal beliefs, or even their demographic?
And then they pushed them out of the conference behind leadership's back?
Did I miss something? This is indeed really childish behavior.
EDIT: oh. It's not even reflection, it's compile time reflection. As in, it's not the next Java but instead something that might actually be very useful for the language if done correctly.
https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023
> The sudden reversal smacks of shadowy decisions that are non-transparent to normal contributors like myself. It is a brutal introduction to the way the Rust Project actually does business that is not covered by its publicly-available Procedures and Practices and absolutely not at all mentioned in its Code of Conduct.
Agreed. The Rust project needs to stamp this out before it begins to fester. This is incredibly stupid behavior coming from what is being regarded as the next C++.
Come on, Rust committee. Let's grow up here, shall we?
by chillbill on 5/28/23, 9:48 AM
I read through the original blog post from JeanHeyd[1] and in no way do they mention anything related to being a person of color, why then does JT associate it with that? I have no idea about the inner workings of the rust leadership team and who they are even, but from the timeline described and from the original post, there's nothing the could be related to that. JeanHeyd is a technical expert and not a token, I feel like introducing the issue of being "a person of color" (as if white is not a color, but whatever) is strange IMO and also needs to be called out. I respect and enjoy JT's work and learned a lot from them, but this is also something that should not be just mentioned casually. If JeanHeyd was invited or their talk demoted because of the color of their skin then there's totally different conversation to be had (and a totally different kind of accountability).
This behavior is disrespectful _regardless_ of the skin color of the expert! It doesn't change it one bit.
Just because they're not white shouldn't afford them any special treatment, and I say that as a non-white person. Merit is what counts, treating experts with affordance to their biology is patronizing at the very least.
My two cents.
1: https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023
by neonsunset on 5/28/23, 9:08 AM
Framing a technical presentation you disagree with as "making you uncomfortable" in highly manipulative fashion definitely deserves to be called out in public.
by orangetuba on 5/28/23, 10:15 AM
by arp242 on 5/28/23, 7:39 AM
You give a talk. People show up. They clap at the end. Does it really matter what some title on some conference website is? The communication was perhaps a bit more confusing and hectic than it should have been, but does that really matter? Is that really a big deal?
I don't even understand why anyone would overly care about this in the first place, and now it's also an example of systemic bias against black people, "cruel", and "heartless"?
If the talk had been outright cancelled: sure, what would have been a right dick move. But from what I can see all that happened is that the "status" (that I don't think many pay attention to) got "downgraded" and (maybe) moved to a different timeslot. I'm just confused why this would spark such strong reactions.
by pie_flavor on 5/28/23, 12:02 PM
by Oddskar on 5/28/23, 10:31 AM
Can we just stop with this intolerance of differing opinions? It's OK to disagree with someone. We don't need to all share the same opinions. Why the fuck would you have a conference if not to inject some healthy discourse in your community?
by bob1029 on 5/28/23, 2:15 PM
I come from .NET background and am open to the idea of a realistic C/C++ replacement. My experience with .NET and its "community" has left me with a really comfortable feeling with regard to my ability to do business, just "get shit done", etc. To be clear, there isn't really a community. I think that's why you don't hear a whole lot of drama come out of it. It's more of a LARP where we pretend we have some kind of say and sometimes Microsoft's leadership agrees and it looks like we participated openly. Most on HN hate this, but when you are trying to build a stable B2B product and signing 5+ year contracts, it's a goddamn paradise to not have concerns about what angry corners of social media might be up in arms about today.
by FrustratedMonky on 5/28/23, 11:08 AM
by Roark66 on 5/28/23, 1:29 PM
Am I the only one that considers such arbitrary "diversity enforcement policy" horribly racist?
No organisation should be "called out for a lack of - insert-race-here- representation unless that organisation is in fact discriminatory. No one should be discouraged, relegated, skipped for mentoring or removed from a membership or a leadership role in an organisation because that person is the wrong race. Regardless of the reason why you feel that race is wrong. Calling out a group "for lack of Black representation" is basically telling every single non-Black member of that group they are less valuable because of the color of their skin.
People are not exchangeable units whose defining feature is the color of their skin. How can intelligent people not see this kind of thinking leads to the worst of social divisions?
Personally, I was with the author until that quote. If I was a member of that organisation I too would not be OK being represented by a person that makes such horribly offensive personal opinions known regardless of their technical expertise.
by ummonk on 5/28/23, 9:08 AM
by bruce343434 on 5/28/23, 11:21 AM
by jenadine on 5/28/23, 7:41 AM
by Twirrim on 5/28/23, 6:37 AM
This bit stood out to me as the main thing that's probably at least rationally explainable:
> Why did RustConf leadership go along with this decision and not protect the speaker? Why wasn't Rust leadership notified of the time period in which to change the decision?
which feeds from:
> A person in Rust leadership then, without taking a vote from the interim leadership group (remember, JeanHeyd was voted on and selected by Rust leadership), reached directly to RustConf leadership and asked to change the invitation.
I can easily picture the RustConf leadership believing that the person from Rust leadership was either operating with full knowledge of the leadership, or would be communicating with them.
by meindnoch on 5/28/23, 9:38 AM
by cashsterling on 5/28/23, 3:25 PM
Disagreement in technical development is highly valuable... alternative points of view should be prized and inspected, not ostracized. Quashing alternate views and opinions is a sign of a small intellect and/or a narcissistic personality disorder.
For the good of the Rust community, there needs to be some transparency on who exactly did what and those people who deviated from Rust leadership rules need to apologize. It will probably be very uncomfortable for those individuals, but too bad... get over yourselves... you screwed up... you should try to make it right.
There is probably no salvaging this current situation, but a description of what happened, mistakes made, and an authentic apology would go a long way. If folks can't own their mistakes, they need to evaluate their character and consider stepping aside... although, if folks don't understand what they did was wrong, they are probably incapable of real introspection (see comment above about narcissistic personality disorder).
To those Rust leaders who felt uncomfortable with Keynote speaker's probable topics of address... and decided it was okay to let your discomfort lead to this disgraceful outcome... shame on you. You need to take a good look in the mirror and learn some scientific history (remember, it's computer SCIENCE): scientist who use politics to quash alternate theories and views almost always acted from narcissism and almost always harmed scientific progress. Your actions are probably harming Rust.
by mberning on 5/28/23, 10:55 AM
by Blackstrat on 5/28/23, 1:41 PM
by locusofself on 5/28/23, 6:38 AM
by ojosilva on 5/28/23, 11:02 AM
Participative leadership, otoh, is a pain. Every topic is a tug-of-war. Every decision has a significant party that disagrees and is unhappy with the outcome. Every ego flourishes. Even the serene will feel poised and entitled to raise endless issues. There's a general lack of perspective and very few people celebrating what has been accomplished. All milestones are muddied by buts and ifs and people feel like shit.
Yet in every disagreement lies opportunity. Multiplying successes is the heart and soul of teamwork. That's why participative groups are better because worse is better. I hope the Rust team doesn't lose perspective and keep, as before, working hard to drive such a great language, toolchain and open community forward.
by pdimitar on 5/28/23, 2:05 PM
Another thing that rubs me the wrong way: "lack of Black representation". So here's the question: is somebody actively suppressing Black applicants, or are there simply no Black applicants?
If it's the former, obviously that's a huge problem. But I suspect it's the latter and if that's really the case then this seems like people basically rebelling against an objective reality they can do nothing against, but still make a drama over it. If there are literally no black people who want to do things X and Y, how is that even a reason to feel bad about stuff? Same way as you won't find many Japanese golfers in, say, Italy. There simply are not enough people out there with the characteristics you are focused on that do the things you feel they should feel more represented in. Nothing you can do.
EDIT: And before I keep receiving replies that are COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC, my question to any reader or commenter is this: where do we draw the line on what should the Rust Foundation do when relating to world-wide social injustice problems? Many people seem to think that it's a trampoline to achieving social justice in the world and I strongly disagree with that stance. Let's keep our goals realistic and compartmentalized; there are other organizations out there that fight injustice as their main objective. Rust Foundation is not that.
by mgaunard on 5/28/23, 10:37 AM
There isn't a conference where I don't hear about a LGBTQ person not being offended by so and so.
Then you have the politics of who gets to set out the true vision or be a chair at this or that committee.
If you're serious about programming, you just stay away from both of these. Being a language expert is pretty irrelevant anyway, it's just some ego-boosting in case you can't be successful at your business domain.
by julienfr112 on 5/28/23, 10:19 AM
What will happen next ?
by oytis on 5/28/23, 10:39 AM
Is it that BDFL-based governance just works better, or do people have higher expectations from Rust community than from, say, Linux one?
by Yasuraka on 5/28/23, 9:26 AM
I believe these must've been Oppenheimer's words
by mtzet on 5/28/23, 6:43 AM
I'm having trouble finding it. Can anyone link this post?
by Havoc on 5/28/23, 8:46 AM
by pyrelight on 5/28/23, 8:42 AM
Event organizers need someone who can think through all the angles of decisions made and how it affects attendees and the communities being represented. The fact that a group made up of logical thinkers couldn't foresee this (or maybe they did and just don't care), is sad.
by distcs on 5/28/23, 9:12 AM
Is his role significant enough that his departure from Rust will force Rust leadership to fix their internal problems?
by zamalek on 5/28/23, 9:43 AM
by thiht on 5/28/23, 11:36 AM
by artyom on 5/28/23, 4:38 PM
by WhereIsTheTruth on 5/28/23, 2:24 PM
The people with a crab or the electric zig on their social media profile thing are all the same and will end up being disappointed the same way at some point
Don't fanboy, stay critic and reevaluate your tools needs whenever possible
by JdeBP on 5/28/23, 9:09 AM
by da39a3ee on 5/28/23, 2:30 PM
Are we to surmise that some people in the Rust leadership felt that the speaker was invited because of their race/skin color, and objected on this basis?
Or is it less dramatic than that -- simply that some people in leadership felt that the technical content just wasn't good enough, and the author of the article we're reading can't bear someone being judged on technical merit?
Either way, to put it in simple terms, I think we're reading an article from someone on the woke/progressive side complaining about the actions of the other side, right?
Perhaps it's actually this article (a complaining article with bizarre overly emotional language) which is evidence of problems with Rust's leadership community and the decision being complained about was reasonable?
by fnordpiglet on 5/28/23, 3:15 PM
* it’s a language and technical thing so human emotions and feelings don’t matter HTFU
* there’s a race and diversity aspect and anything that has to do with race and diversity offends me HTFU
Or some variant.
These are people doing stuff they’re passionate about. You may be an end user and don’t care about the internal politics, but for these folks it’s a group of humans working together with all the emotional complexities of such things. It’s more like a job for them than a technical project - with all the HR issues those entail. If you’ve ever worked on a standards effort it’s even more the human complexity roller coaster than a job. Add in they’re a bunch of socially maladjusted nerds, and the thresholds for drama are lower and the ability to navigate is even worse.
So, I think empathy for those who are hurt and their reasons isn’t uncalled for. Hearing the other side would be useful too.
On the race and diversity side: having a black person give a key note at a conference of this technical depth would be good. Arguing it shouldn’t matter doesn’t consider black engineers in a field where there are no peers like them that are visible. In your life where you’re surrounded by people like you everywhere you go it’s likely hard to understand directly, but as a nerd remember when you were in middle school and you just wished for one other person who loved assembler as much as you. That scratches the surface of the feeling of exclusion minority engineers feel - except it didn’t end in middle school, it happens every day in every interaction. Then when someone dares say “hey yeah I get you,” they get shouted down for “making it political,” which sounds an awful lot like “I don’t like black people standing up for themselves” to black peoples ears - further isolating them. I’m sorry you find that inconvenient and you feel like it shouldn’t matter. But as the person who doesn’t fit in and is made to remember that in situations and discussions like this, it’s bound to hurt. Hence, hence the emotions of hurt and betrayal on display.
by stcroixx on 5/28/23, 1:52 PM
by lamontcg on 5/28/23, 4:18 PM
And all the people who immediately started accusing rust of being "woke" are equally at fault here--don't think for a moment that I'm on your side. This whole thread is a disaster.
How did we get here in the first place that people seem to have religious beliefs over a language feature and want to scream at other people that they're heretics (and see the wailing and moaning in the Go community over generics for another example).
All of you, grow the goddamn fuck up, please.
by znpy on 5/28/23, 7:53 AM
Ngl, that looks like teen drama.
Really poor leadership, it seems there wasn’t even an attempt at mediation, or a vote, or anything.
by wyldfire on 5/28/23, 1:28 PM
by veidr on 5/28/23, 12:12 PM
Or sometimes, yes, you end up exposing your organization as the cabal of racist authoritarian illegitimate corporate-sellout puppetmasters that it actually is.
But I mean... I don't see strong evidence of the latter, unless there is more to the backstory than I gleaned from the process above, which is:
1. No non-white person has ever given a keynote at RustConf (according to the linked "Why I Left Rust" post)
2. This one was going to be that.
3. But then the conference organizers canceled it, in a ham-fisted way.
4. But also, the topic was controversial, in the sense that at least some stakeholders may have felt "this kind of compile time reflection will definitely not be added to Rust in the foreseeable future"
So... it is absolutely understandable that the Meneide was highly irritated by the way it was handled, and ended up declining to present at all.
But did the Rust organization "disgrace" this expert in the field? Did Rust act as a "cruel, heartless entity"?
I will concede the late rejection (of the talk as a "keynote") was "unprofessional", but... was it "vindictive"? That implies the organization wanted revenge for something... what?
It's not clear to me after clicking and reading for almost an hour. But it seems to be consistent with the pattern of the various entities around Rust stepping on their own dicks. I'm reminded of the Rust Foundation taking out full-page newspaper ads like "IMPLEMENTING A CRYPTO PONZI SCHEME? DO IT FASTER IN RUST!" and then actual Rust core team people were like ":fuck-you-emoji: :barf-emoji:".
I would be perhaps relieved that they are apparently making a significant effort at reforming their governance (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3392) were it not for the fact that one of the authors of that PR is the author of the post we're discussing here, who just quit the Rust project entirely. :grimace-of-regret-emjoi:
by neilv on 5/28/23, 1:20 PM
by aigoochamna on 5/28/23, 4:12 PM
1. Dude gets invited to do a keynote.
2. Dude gets his keynote invite withdrawn because some members of the rust team were "uncomfortable" with the content of dude's blog. The content which was technical and not of the standard Twitter/cancellation variety.
3. Second Dude leaves rust leadership because he seen how the rust community treated first dude.
Alternatively, look at the Go community and leadership. The Go team discussed generics and eventually implemented them although leadership and the community was often against it. They certainly didn't cancel keynotes or speakers that were pro-generics.
by coldtea on 5/28/23, 4:25 PM
Any project with such people in it would succeed despite of them, not because of them. It's sad to see a project burdened by egos and bureaucracy.
by jokoon on 5/28/23, 9:55 AM
But other than that, rust is just a "modern ADA", nothing more. It cannot easily get interfaced with existing UI API either. Having verifiable code is a niche thing, it is very important, but most programmers don't need it.
Not to mention that rust is generally more difficult to read than C, and a language will always fail to be largely adopted if its learning curve is too steep. At least in C++, you can write code that resembles C, so it's still approachable to beginners. Not in rust.
I wish rust was easier to learn and had a syntax closer to C, while retaining its secure features. It has too many weird specific features and syntax that are too alien. A big reason python is popular is because it retains this "C style" and is so easy to deal with. Rust is the opposite of that.
by lr1970 on 5/28/23, 3:18 PM
by mfru on 5/28/23, 11:04 AM
(I don't agree with flagging either)
by chrishare on 5/28/23, 11:31 AM
by frankfrank13 on 5/28/23, 3:18 PM
by epistasis on 5/28/23, 3:32 PM
I'm actually really glad to see this sort of stuff be aired in the community, and I hope it strengthens the Rust community and makes the language stronger. I really hope that Rust gets greater adoption. The syntax with lifetimes is a bit painful, but everything else is really amazing for making super fast code when needed.
by ok123456 on 5/28/23, 4:51 PM
My guess is that it wouldn't have conquered every arena of computing outside of desktop computing like it has.
by june_twenty on 5/28/23, 5:21 PM
by overgard on 5/28/23, 7:31 PM
by bsenftner on 5/28/23, 12:06 PM
Fact of the matter: our entire industry is never taught how to professionally communicate, and these constant drama fests are the manifestation of immature communication skills, across the board, our entire industry.
by 0xbadc0de5 on 5/28/23, 10:11 AM
by Capricorn2481 on 5/28/23, 6:28 PM
by malkosta on 5/28/23, 2:09 PM
by ianzakalwe on 5/28/23, 4:31 PM
I have being part of rust community since 2013, I have seen lots of oddities over the years in this community. While it is inspiring to see such a dedicated and passionate community it is also upsetting to see same community kill off its own members based on disagreements and inability to carry any sort of constructive discourse.
by encody on 5/29/23, 10:41 AM
Conference organizers sucked at communication, both internally and with the speaker.
But the speaker doesn't take the affront in stride, instead choosing to make a stink on Twitter, complain, swear about a ruined weekend, and call people racist. Not the kind of professionalism I would expect from a prospective keynote speaker.
by say_it_as_it_is on 5/30/23, 8:22 PM
JeanHeyd race-shamed their way right onto the main stage for a global tech conference? I can't imagine why anyone would take offense to that agenda. Yes, must be related to a blog post about compile-time reflection.
by unixhero on 5/28/23, 12:01 PM
To me this was a great and necessary decision.
by greesil on 5/28/23, 3:29 PM
Did I get that right?
by nbittich on 5/28/23, 1:36 PM
by revskill on 5/28/23, 11:06 AM
More empathy is welcome (from the keynote person, too). Instead of giving up, let's try to improve things and avoid blaming instead. Blaming is not the best way to improve things, even if it hurt you.
Input: Presentations on some topics from some people.
Output: Fuzzy logic here right ?
by babbledabbler on 5/28/23, 5:43 PM
I'm actually working on an app for organizations to make clear, fair, and transparent decisions systematically so things like this don't happen.
by slackfan on 5/28/23, 3:49 PM
by kazinator on 5/30/23, 3:03 AM
Programmers are control freaks.
If you don't let yourself to reach into things and flip bits in the machine's memory, that's going to boil over somewhere.
by erdeibit on 5/28/23, 3:02 PM
by anta40 on 5/28/23, 1:13 PM
by chclt on 5/28/23, 3:26 PM
by RenThraysk on 5/28/23, 3:35 PM
by zelphirkalt on 5/28/23, 10:06 AM
It would have been interesting, to write about who and what topic was chosen as a replacement as well. I guess, I can understand not wanting to have to do much with people, who for not justifying reasons demote a speaker, whom one thinks highly of. It probably raises the question of what is more important to oneself. The project or the other people involved in it. Apparently the project was not important enough.
This blog post has a feel of creating more drama though. The person considers themselves important enough, that people may wonder why they left Rust. Well, normal people leave and when people ask, they answer. Possibly in detail, possibly a canned answer. If people really want to know, they can ask. Making it a public announcement has the drama feel to it.
I get this feeling often with rather publicly well known projects. Supposedly prominent people who are so kind to donate their time to the cause, but at a hickup leave the project and write a drama blog post or worse tweet or something. Seemingly making us think, that they are a great loss for the project. Well apparently their priorities were different. More about the people or prestige of working on the project than the actual project, which they might even be harming with their drama blog post.
And then that section:
> I also felt the weight of the context of the decision. JeanHeyd isn't just a recent grant recipient of the Rust Foundation. JeanHeyd has important history with the Rust project.
> It was JeanHeyd who called Rust out for having no Black representation among Rust conference speakers. Rightly so, as both the Rust organization and the conferences had little to no Black representation.
> When I saw an organization that not only could act so coldly to an expert in the field, but also to one who was a vocal critic of Rust's lack of diversity, it was hard not to see the additional context.
> Systems have memory and biases. If the people that make up the system don't work to fight against these, they are perpetuated.
No, no, no. Firstly, no explanation, what JeanHeyd actually did for Rust. Nagging about lack of diversity OK, but did they make suggestions for people to invite? Or was it just complaining? I would not call it "important history" then. Complaining about diversity or the lack of is easy. Did they do anything themselves to change it? And why the racism? What inherent qualities does JeanHeyd ascribe to "black" people? And what significant contributions did JeanHeyd make?
I am for diversity, but it needs to be based on actual merit and not just that stupid "Oh we got no blacky, lets invite one, then we are good!". Make it a reasonable choice! Look for the talent and invite it, not because of some skin color ideas. Make sure you do not fall into bias avoiding other ethnicities because of who they are. But also make sure not to overlook greater merit, because you haven't ticked a bock on your skin color check list yet. If a "black" person is the best fit, choose them. If not, then choose someone else. Don't friggin base it on color. If you base these things merely on color of the skin, you are opening the doors for the unpleasant crowd, who will argue, that a person did not get into their position by merit, but by skin color. You don't want such crowd, so don't attract them with such argumentation.
> As my buddy Aman pointed out, the context that this would have also been the first keynote by a person of color at RustConf should not be lost here.
And the value in that is? Just to be aligned with ideology? Or some racism behind it?
As a viewer I want a good keynote. I don't care what the color of that person is. Why do you make it a color question? What does it have to do with color? This kind of argumentation makes me think, that they are actually more racist than others. It is all so forced, it is no longer authentic. Let it be done in authentic ways. And again, don't argue on the basis of skin color, otherwise you are just as racist as the guy who rejects a person on the basis of skin color.
In some situations one can argue on the basis of additional diverse cultural background being brought into a situation, group, company, etc. It needs to have something to do with the subject at hand though. Say for example a teacher in a primary school. There it could make a difference to have a person with different cultural background, to teach the children more things and make them aware of different culture. It is an argumentation one can follow. But just arguing: "We don't have 10 'black' people at our conference yet." is very weak and ethically slippery terrain.
by b1234 on 5/28/23, 3:10 PM
by tomaaron on 5/28/23, 2:34 PM
by QuiEgo on 5/28/23, 10:39 PM
by sxhunga on 5/28/23, 4:03 PM
by wly_cdgr on 5/29/23, 4:51 AM
by quantumwoke on 5/28/23, 9:59 AM
Why can't we just focus on code and the brilliant work from JeanHeyd rather than politics? The Servo post was a reminder of how it used to be.
by 29athrowaway on 5/28/23, 1:31 PM
Is this an accusation that the change was made on racial grounds? Otherwise I fail to see why mentioning it.
by Lanz on 5/28/23, 2:19 PM
by aogaili on 5/28/23, 12:45 PM
by bscphil on 5/28/23, 3:08 PM
If we can just all get on the same page about this, we'll be able to figure out who it's appropriate for us to hate, as levelheaded software engineers who never let emotions cloud our judgments.
by forty on 5/28/23, 2:58 PM
by aww_dang on 5/28/23, 9:53 AM
by rvz on 5/28/23, 10:34 AM
This whole post really is a first world problem and the issue at had is as great as the great explosion of the ant hill in the back garden, which almost no-one cares about.
by meatjuice on 5/28/23, 11:14 PM
by beezlewax on 5/28/23, 7:56 PM
Programmers want good stable languages that are a joy to work with. Everthing else but this can take a hike.
by edem on 5/28/23, 11:10 AM
by BaculumMeumEst on 5/28/23, 12:33 PM
by totallyunknown on 5/28/23, 11:56 AM
tl/dr: "The key message in this text is a call for accountability following the decision to downgrade JeanHeyd Meneide from keynote speaker at RustConf due to disagreements with his blog post. The decision was perceived as disrespectful and cruel, lacking in appropriate organizational procedures. This has highlighted a larger systemic problem within the Rust organization and prompted the author's resignation. They call for a full investigation, a greater focus on accountability rather than diplomacy, protection of individuals from such unjust actions, and the implementation of safeguards to prevent similar incidents in the future."
by jasmer on 5/28/23, 12:14 PM
"But it was just a downgrade. I shake my head at people that say things like this. Clearly, they are not used to treating people - let alone experts in the field - with respect. "
It was actually just a downgrade - and using terms like 'cruel' lacks proportionality.
It's a bit petty, especially for these kinds of public grievances over very personal, pedantic kinds of things.
Obviously what Rust did was 'not good' - these things happen all the time - and they need perspective and context.
All this huff and puff from people who take themselves a bit too seriously, maybe to the point of arrogance - we're professionals not artists, and that means 'making sausage as best we can'. It's all sausage, nothing is perfect, toes get stepped on - roll with it - that is the sign of maturity and confidence. If there is a systemic issue take that up.
Paradoxically it's these kinds of public slap fights over that make me wary of being engaged with a community, it's too much Kardashian.
by 0zemp2c on 5/28/23, 9:14 AM
by wirrbel on 5/28/23, 6:42 AM