I refuse to let Amazon define Rust(twitter.com)
twitter.com
I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617
353 comments
Not let them have the foundation chair. I think Ashley would've made a great chairwoman, but she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.
> she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.
I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director.
I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The structural issue here is that the foundation decided to forgo extending her contract while looking for a new ED; this means that the foundation currently does not have one, and we don't know when a new one is coming. During that time, the chair of the board has more power than they usually would, and Amazon is chair of the board.
I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director.
I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The structural issue here is that the foundation decided to forgo extending her contract while looking for a new ED; this means that the foundation currently does not have one, and we don't know when a new one is coming. During that time, the chair of the board has more power than they usually would, and Amazon is chair of the board.
I don't want Amazon to define Rust but I want my pal to define it doesn't exactly sound like a solid argument. Is there any more meat on the bone here?
Ashley has been really great for the Rust community, isn't currently employed by a massive corporation, and has some really solid views & principles on how to empower open source work. (See some of her talks) Empowering open source work on Rust is exactly what the Rust foundation is supposed to do, which is why I'd really have preferred a Rust foundation with Ashley as ED.
An unfortunate blemish on her record is her handling of `wasm-pack`.
She worked to ensure it become a critical part of the Rust/Wasm ecosystem and then silently stopped maintaining it. For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights.
Even though `wasm-pack` became unusable for many users it was still described as necessary in the official Rust / Wasm tutorials. Likely this set back the Rust/Wasm ecosystem by discouraging many new members.
It would have been far better if she just spoke up and asked for help.
It seems she wanted to ignore a problem she didn't want to deal with, which I can relate to, but that's not a good quality in an executive director.
Some relevant GitHub issues: https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914 https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
She worked to ensure it become a critical part of the Rust/Wasm ecosystem and then silently stopped maintaining it. For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights.
Even though `wasm-pack` became unusable for many users it was still described as necessary in the official Rust / Wasm tutorials. Likely this set back the Rust/Wasm ecosystem by discouraging many new members.
It would have been far better if she just spoke up and asked for help.
It seems she wanted to ignore a problem she didn't want to deal with, which I can relate to, but that's not a good quality in an executive director.
Some relevant GitHub issues: https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914 https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
> For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights.
There is an easy and appropriate response to this - just fork() the project under a new name. There's nothing wrong with this, especially when the maintainer doesn't respond to community inquiries. People in the open source community are generally volunteers, so we shouldn't expect or require them to "speak up" if it can be avoided.
There is an easy and appropriate response to this - just fork() the project under a new name. There's nothing wrong with this, especially when the maintainer doesn't respond to community inquiries. People in the open source community are generally volunteers, so we shouldn't expect or require them to "speak up" if it can be avoided.
I think there are a couple important details you are missing...
First, wasm-pack is not Ashley's personal project, it is an official Rust Wasm project. That means it is owned by the Rust Wasm team, and it is maintained by the Rust Wasm team. It is an official part of Rust, similar to how cargo and rustdoc are an official part of Rust. wasm-pack was never intended to be maintained only by Ashley.
Multiple Rust Wasm Core team members (including myself) politely asked Ashley multiple times to transfer publishing rights to the Rust Wasm Core team (which she was supposed to have done months ago), but she refused.
Multiple people had politely offered to take over maintenance of wasm-pack (when it was clear that Ashley was unwilling to do so), but once again she refused. She knew how important wasm-pack is to Rust Wasm, but she did not want to give up control and power, even though it wasn't even supposed to be her package in the first place.
Second, forking is not as simple or as easy as you claim... forking is something that has a very high cost, so it should be done as a last resort. wasm-pack is an official Rust package (and it is vital to Rust Wasm), and so forking it would have a lot of costs:
* A new crate would have to be created (what should it be called? wasm-pack2?)
* The GitHub repo would have to be changed or transferred.
* Multiple different documentation websites (including the official Rust website) would need to be updated.
* A newsletter would need to be sent out informing everybody of the change.
* All existing projects would need to switch to the new package.
* The old package would still exist, which would be very confusing for people, especially because many tutorials and blogs would still be referring to the old wasm-pack!
* Ashley herself would throw a huge tantrum over it, because she would view it as taking control away from herself. And because she is a Rust Core team member, her tantrum would have power behind it.
Forking is absolutely NOT an appropriate solution in this case. Ashley's behavior was simply wrong, unacceptable, and reflects very poorly on the Rust team (which she is a part of).
As for Ashley's personal character... before she worked for Rust, she worked for npm. While she was working there, she tried to falsely accuse Rod Vagg because she wanted to kick him out of npm. Thankfully she failed, and after she failed she quit npm:
https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-ha...
https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53...
While she was working for npm, she violated npm's Code of Conduct numerous times, saying incredibly horrible sexist and racist things such as "kill all men", and actively trying to prevent white men from speaking at tech conferences:
https://archive.fo/f10KK
No, she was not joking, and even if it was "just a joke" it is unacceptable. If a man said "kill all women" even as a joke he would be immediately fired and blacklisted from all companies.
Despite all of this, she was still hired onto the Rust Core team, because she is in a romantic relationship with Steve Klabnik (nepotism). Interestingly, Steve Klabnik is also the same person who is smearing Amazon because Amazon denied a job to Ashley.
The Rust Core team was aware of Ashley's past behavior, yet they hired her anyways. And even though numerous people spoke out about this, they were silenced and censored by the Rust team:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/announcement-ashley-willia...
Ashley also abused her moderator powers to ban dakom, even though he had done nothing wrong:
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
She also made numerous lies in those two threads (such as claiming that the Rust Wasm Core team is "random people without organization", the Rust Wasm Core team is hand-picked, they are the official leaders of Rust Wasm).
She acted incredibly disrespectful toward the Rust Wasm team (who worked very hard to make Rust work on Wasm), even though she had contributed basically nothing.
There is a dark side to Rust, which everybody is afraid to talk about. Anybody who tries to discuss things is censored by the Rust Core team. That's why I stopped contributing to Rust and I will never go back.
First, wasm-pack is not Ashley's personal project, it is an official Rust Wasm project. That means it is owned by the Rust Wasm team, and it is maintained by the Rust Wasm team. It is an official part of Rust, similar to how cargo and rustdoc are an official part of Rust. wasm-pack was never intended to be maintained only by Ashley.
Multiple Rust Wasm Core team members (including myself) politely asked Ashley multiple times to transfer publishing rights to the Rust Wasm Core team (which she was supposed to have done months ago), but she refused.
Multiple people had politely offered to take over maintenance of wasm-pack (when it was clear that Ashley was unwilling to do so), but once again she refused. She knew how important wasm-pack is to Rust Wasm, but she did not want to give up control and power, even though it wasn't even supposed to be her package in the first place.
Second, forking is not as simple or as easy as you claim... forking is something that has a very high cost, so it should be done as a last resort. wasm-pack is an official Rust package (and it is vital to Rust Wasm), and so forking it would have a lot of costs:
* A new crate would have to be created (what should it be called? wasm-pack2?)
* The GitHub repo would have to be changed or transferred.
* Multiple different documentation websites (including the official Rust website) would need to be updated.
* A newsletter would need to be sent out informing everybody of the change.
* All existing projects would need to switch to the new package.
* The old package would still exist, which would be very confusing for people, especially because many tutorials and blogs would still be referring to the old wasm-pack!
* Ashley herself would throw a huge tantrum over it, because she would view it as taking control away from herself. And because she is a Rust Core team member, her tantrum would have power behind it.
Forking is absolutely NOT an appropriate solution in this case. Ashley's behavior was simply wrong, unacceptable, and reflects very poorly on the Rust team (which she is a part of).
As for Ashley's personal character... before she worked for Rust, she worked for npm. While she was working there, she tried to falsely accuse Rod Vagg because she wanted to kick him out of npm. Thankfully she failed, and after she failed she quit npm:
https://thenewstack.io/node-js-forked-complaints-repeated-ha...
https://medium.com/@rvagg/the-truth-about-rod-vagg-f063f6a53...
While she was working for npm, she violated npm's Code of Conduct numerous times, saying incredibly horrible sexist and racist things such as "kill all men", and actively trying to prevent white men from speaking at tech conferences:
https://archive.fo/f10KK
No, she was not joking, and even if it was "just a joke" it is unacceptable. If a man said "kill all women" even as a joke he would be immediately fired and blacklisted from all companies.
Despite all of this, she was still hired onto the Rust Core team, because she is in a romantic relationship with Steve Klabnik (nepotism). Interestingly, Steve Klabnik is also the same person who is smearing Amazon because Amazon denied a job to Ashley.
The Rust Core team was aware of Ashley's past behavior, yet they hired her anyways. And even though numerous people spoke out about this, they were silenced and censored by the Rust team:
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/announcement-ashley-willia...
Ashley also abused her moderator powers to ban dakom, even though he had done nothing wrong:
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914
https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
She also made numerous lies in those two threads (such as claiming that the Rust Wasm Core team is "random people without organization", the Rust Wasm Core team is hand-picked, they are the official leaders of Rust Wasm).
She acted incredibly disrespectful toward the Rust Wasm team (who worked very hard to make Rust work on Wasm), even though she had contributed basically nothing.
There is a dark side to Rust, which everybody is afraid to talk about. Anybody who tries to discuss things is censored by the Rust Core team. That's why I stopped contributing to Rust and I will never go back.
I did not say "I want my pal to define it" at all. My main thrust here is that no one organization, let alone one person, gets to define what Rust is. And that we have a situation where one organization is gaining a significant amount of power very quickly, and using that to gain even more power.
That’s a ridiculous interpretation of what was said.
“There are 2 entities which make decisions...the contract for the person holding the post of 1 of those 2 entities was not extended by the other entity, and the other entity has not given any timeline on when they expect to fulfill that position, therefore leading to a situation where it’s the only entity with power” is not “I want it run by my pal”.
“There are 2 entities which make decisions...the contract for the person holding the post of 1 of those 2 entities was not extended by the other entity, and the other entity has not given any timeline on when they expect to fulfill that position, therefore leading to a situation where it’s the only entity with power” is not “I want it run by my pal”.
Whatever you say, at least it was to the point rather than making vague hand wavy allegations of malfeasance.
Hey Steve! Forgive me if you already have touched on this, let me know and I can do more digging myself, but upon expiration of Ashley's contract as ED, you said it was the foundation that decided to not extend her contract. Would that have be the group decision including each member director or solely the chairwoman's?
I am not an expert in the foundation's bylaws, and the only thing they said publicly is "The Rust Foundation Board of Directors also wishes the best to Ashley Williams, who will be leaving the post of interim executive director "[1].
I expect that it was a group decision and not a sole one. But again, my point is not about how that happened, my point is that it has happened, and what that means for the state of the organization as a whole, that is, that leadership is concentrated in a single organization.
1: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
I expect that it was a group decision and not a sole one. But again, my point is not about how that happened, my point is that it has happened, and what that means for the state of the organization as a whole, that is, that leadership is concentrated in a single organization.
1: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
This would likely have been easier to know if the foundation had been releasing the minutes from the meetings, the last set of minutes released at the moment is from May
I see now what this is truly about.
Cashing in social capital in retaliation for their partner getting fired?
JFC, that's what you're dog whistling about?! That Ashley "all men are bad and I won't apologize" Williams got fired? Good riddance, and you can go with her.
What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well.
Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?
Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?
The issue was with Mozilla bring the only patron. Also, your sentimrnt about Firefox os not shared by many here.
> They are managing the Firefox project well.
Ahem.
Ahem.
Other problem is being the _sole_ Patreon.
Many people think that the best thing for projects like this is to have as many entities involved as possible. Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others.
For example: neither Mozilla nor Amazon might have Embedded Systems as a core interest, so they will forget about it and might accidently make decisions that ate bad for this use cases. If you also have ARM, Microcontroller vendors and so on on board, they will make sure that this topic isn't overlooked.
Many people think that the best thing for projects like this is to have as many entities involved as possible. Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others.
For example: neither Mozilla nor Amazon might have Embedded Systems as a core interest, so they will forget about it and might accidently make decisions that ate bad for this use cases. If you also have ARM, Microcontroller vendors and so on on board, they will make sure that this topic isn't overlooked.
>> Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others.
That is perhaps the biggest concern.
When a large tech company controls governance, their needs and priorities come first.
We have seen similar concerns with other programming languages in the past: Java (Sun / Oracle), Go (Google), Swift (Apple).
Exclusive or dominant control is not necessarily bad (depends on how transparently the governance process runs and who is involved), but it can severely limit the programming language community's effect and leave the needs of some groups unfulfilled.
That is perhaps the biggest concern.
When a large tech company controls governance, their needs and priorities come first.
We have seen similar concerns with other programming languages in the past: Java (Sun / Oracle), Go (Google), Swift (Apple).
Exclusive or dominant control is not necessarily bad (depends on how transparently the governance process runs and who is involved), but it can severely limit the programming language community's effect and leave the needs of some groups unfulfilled.
I don't agree at all that they are managing the Firefox project well. See the evolution of Firefox's market share over the last decade.
FOSS Projects should fight to maintain a healthy independence from corporate influence. That perfect balance ism difficult to define, much less maintain.
Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust?
As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
Judging from Mozilla's past actions, Mozilla can't trust that it's free of manipulation from other companies like Google, etc.
Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc.
There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may also be affected", like Red Hat pulling the carpet under CentOS or many other examples.
There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may also be affected", like Red Hat pulling the carpet under CentOS or many other examples.
The solution isn't "Well - let's stop that company from using our product" it's to ride that company for a while and try to remain semi-independent until the spotlight shown on your product by that company attracts other devs. Basically the "Oh hey - Amazon decided to use Rust? Maybe it isn't just a passing fad..." adoption takes time and Rust is still very young.
No one is suggesting that the company stop using it, where did you get such a silly notion?
But... doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? It seems like now you are saying that employees of large corporations also should not have serious roles in such Foundations.
It does now, but that's a fairly recent development. That's why Steve is calling this a "regression".
> doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed?
Guess which FAANG company has de facto control of the foundation now? I'll give you two hints: it starts with A and isn't Apple.
Guess which FAANG company has de facto control of the foundation now? I'll give you two hints: it starts with A and isn't Apple.
Alphabet? The correct answer is we don't know since people are being coy with details......
I agree with the points in your comment, but one can also acknowledge that the popularity of some programming languages is buoyed by corporate sponsorship or the association with a company. Would Rust or Go have enjoyed their popularity without the support of Mozilla and Google?
Also, without a generous benefactor, open source languages have to scrape funding together piecemeal from different sources. For example, both Rust and Go have had (or still have) dedicated staff writing documentation for the language. This is a luxury that other languages (e.g. Nim or Crystal) cannot fund or afford.
All languages want to attract developers and a key question is: how can languages without a big corporate benefactor attract funding to help grow the language and build related libraries?
Also, without a generous benefactor, open source languages have to scrape funding together piecemeal from different sources. For example, both Rust and Go have had (or still have) dedicated staff writing documentation for the language. This is a luxury that other languages (e.g. Nim or Crystal) cannot fund or afford.
All languages want to attract developers and a key question is: how can languages without a big corporate benefactor attract funding to help grow the language and build related libraries?
Having a single company with most the control is not necessarily the same as having a corporate sponsorship. A language could have many corporate sponsorships and benefactors. The problem being referenced is having one benefactor with too much control.
That problem is fundamental. As soon as one entity gets too much control, it's impossible to wrest control back without their agreement, or a long protracted battle which will hurt the thing being fought over.
Nobody is saying keep corporate interests completely divorced, this is just a call to be aware that one interest is getting too much power, whether on purpose or just through increased interest on their part, but the end result is the same. If we care about Rust not being beholden to one entity at the expense of others, then action should be taken now (even if that action is just much increased scrutiny and asking Amazon to please make sure the executive directory position is filled ASAP, and not with someone Amazon affiliated).
That problem is fundamental. As soon as one entity gets too much control, it's impossible to wrest control back without their agreement, or a long protracted battle which will hurt the thing being fought over.
Nobody is saying keep corporate interests completely divorced, this is just a call to be aware that one interest is getting too much power, whether on purpose or just through increased interest on their part, but the end result is the same. If we care about Rust not being beholden to one entity at the expense of others, then action should be taken now (even if that action is just much increased scrutiny and asking Amazon to please make sure the executive directory position is filled ASAP, and not with someone Amazon affiliated).
See for example the atom text editor. Amazing editor, down to one or two maintainers who can't keep up with the issues/PRs.
RIP.
RIP.
There was a lot of good and a lot of bad! It was absolutely necessary to get Rust going. But even as the project started, senior leadership at Mozilla wanted to make sure that it was a community thing, not a Mozilla specific thing.
Even though Mozilla was pretty hands-off from Rust, management wise, one thing being in control of something like this just has a lot of effects. I'm not really prepared to go into a full retro of Mozilla's involvement with Rust here, I just wanted to note that there was also a lot of good there.
Even though Mozilla was pretty hands-off from Rust, management wise, one thing being in control of something like this just has a lot of effects. I'm not really prepared to go into a full retro of Mozilla's involvement with Rust here, I just wanted to note that there was also a lot of good there.
I think the problem was more along the financial side: like why the whole of FAANG benefits from the tech while Mozilla foots most of the bill.
And apparently that couldn't change until Rust went off on its independent journey.
And apparently that couldn't change until Rust went off on its independent journey.
cratermoon(2)
Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this.
I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1].
Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286
I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1].
Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286
This really did not age well. There's a problem with this kind of absolute logical reasoning that it's impossible to argue against.
"Sure this company has showed evil in the past, but what specific data do you have to show that they will be evil again?"
"Sure this structure allows the company to have a lot of power, but what specifically makes you think they will abuse it?"
This kind of specious reasoning is far too common in the corporate world to remove resistance to any unpopular sentiments. There comes a point where you really have to trust your gut on something and go with it even if you cannot logically justify it in the moment. That's what separates visionaries from tacticians.
"Sure this company has showed evil in the past, but what specific data do you have to show that they will be evil again?"
"Sure this structure allows the company to have a lot of power, but what specifically makes you think they will abuse it?"
This kind of specious reasoning is far too common in the corporate world to remove resistance to any unpopular sentiments. There comes a point where you really have to trust your gut on something and go with it even if you cannot logically justify it in the moment. That's what separates visionaries from tacticians.
> This really did not age well...
How so? Would you like to explain how you came to this conclusion?
How so? Would you like to explain how you came to this conclusion?
That commenter is agreeing with you. (I would say this underscores the need for everyone to speak clearly, but IMO they at least were speaking fairly clearly already.)
Hey, I know this is quite far downthread and didn’t get much attention - and there’s a 92% chance you won’t even see this comment due to HN’s bizarre lack of any adequate notification mechanism - but I just wanted to say I really appreciate your writing this. This crystallises a lot of thoughts I have about that kind of ‘selective pyrrhonism’, where positions one agrees with can be justified with only vague hunches (or defining your position as the null hypothesis: e.g. we default for no clear reason to assuming Amazon’s benevolence), but people who disagree are demanded to give preposterously specific evidence.
> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on foundations for them to do this.
for them to do what?
> I feared this would happen months ago
feared what would happen?
> Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
what has come true?
In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be valid concerns, but if you only allude to them without ever stating them, nobody will know!
for them to do what?
> I feared this would happen months ago
feared what would happen?
> Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
what has come true?
In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be valid concerns, but if you only allude to them without ever stating them, nobody will know!
Arguably the same concerns that led to Mozilla wanting to move away from being the sole steward of Rust in the first place.
You know what this is about. I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets and now you're trying to gaslight the situation.
We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.
We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.
>You know what this is about.
No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything.
>I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets
Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is).
If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.
No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything.
>I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets
Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is).
If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.
So you've admitted you haven't read what I said and the tweets and you've just rushed into the comments section?
And even steve is concerned about the structure himself, if you have bothered to read the tweets.
Maybe you should actually read my comment and the links before replying.
> I don't understand why Google, Microsoft and AWS et. al are on a board of this new foundation.
> It is the structure that I am concerned about. Again, I'd rather have them just sponsor Rust, why wasn't a gold or platinum sponsorship like structure considered without placing them on the board of directors.
> We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
And even steve is concerned about the structure himself, if you have bothered to read the tweets.
Maybe you should actually read my comment and the links before replying.
What "concerns"? Again you have stated and quoted nothing other than vague "it's the structure" or allusions to "too much power". What about the structure? What power are you alluding to?
What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?
What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?
> What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?
Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community.
Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companies (big ones) that sponsor a project/foundation and not be given a board seat.
Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community.
Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companies (big ones) that sponsor a project/foundation and not be given a board seat.
secuthro22(1)
Here is a Thread Reader view of these tweets.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html
Hey, at least they didn't pick "move fast and break things" as a core principle. They're doing better than C/C++.
C++ is pretty much the opposite of moving fast and breaking things. It takes like 10+ years, lots of academic papers and debates, lots of peer review, to get a feature into the ISO standard. The reason it's so bloated is just because of age.
Rust is just a single implementation that's CI'ed with nightly releases.
Rust is just a single implementation that's CI'ed with nightly releases.
When you think of C/C++ your first thought is move fast and break things?
What have they moved fast on and what's breaking for you?
What have they moved fast on and what's breaking for you?
Rust is just getting started to see the same problems as C in the 80's (becoming successful enough that multiple competing compiler implementations emerged, which in turn required standardization). I think that the same will happen with Rust (but those can be good things, if it works more like the C committee and less like the C++ committee): first multiple competing implementations (like gccrs) will emerge, and once the situation gets too messy, a proper specification followed by an ISO standard, and a committee to carefully refine and maintain the standard.
In the 80's there wasn't internet, which is a huge help to centralize power. For example, look at Python that got popular after internet was a thing: CPython IS Python. People tried alternatives, but popularity brings even more popularity. The same thing happened with Deno recently. Sure, maybe it has a bit of traction, but it's almost nothing compared to Node. It will be the same for Rust and alternative compilers: nobody will use them outside of a few people, that will deal themselves with the consequences.
I don't really understand the issue with aws's involvement with rust? As far as I understand, they want a language that lets them.
1. write software thats high performance 2. minimize defects 3. can be used for a variety of sitauations
There are all things I want from rust as does the community as a whole. Seems like the incentives are lined up in a way thats beneficial for everyone.
maybe someone else can educate me on something I don't know here?
1. write software thats high performance 2. minimize defects 3. can be used for a variety of sitauations
There are all things I want from rust as does the community as a whole. Seems like the incentives are lined up in a way thats beneficial for everyone.
maybe someone else can educate me on something I don't know here?
Are we reading the same thread? I don't think their involvement is at issue.
I've read the thread, and I'm unsure what the issue actually is. Can someone state what the actual problem is?
AFAICS Steve wants to ensure that none of the members of the Foundation have more influence than the others. He seems to suggest that Amazon has taken over a significant portion of control lately (IANAL but I think by deciding to not renew the contract of the Executive Director for the foreseeable future, control of the Foundation is vested in the Chair of the Board, aka for now Amazon, and maybe they are trying to do some shady stuff)
This is all speculation, I hope Steve can write a blogpost to detail clearly the situation. He already namedropped, and these tweets with scarce information only fuel confusion, which IMHO can do severe damage, as all miscommunication problems.
This is all speculation, I hope Steve can write a blogpost to detail clearly the situation. He already namedropped, and these tweets with scarce information only fuel confusion, which IMHO can do severe damage, as all miscommunication problems.
Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages.
Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust.
Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust.
Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
Rust developers were doing very well, even before Amazon came to it.
And there is no reason to believe that the growth would not have continued without Amazon's participation.
There's the simple fact that many major non Amazon companies are also supporting Rust, so I don't see how this is uniquely Amazon's contributions.
This argument appears akin to the original article's "Rustacean principles are based on Amazon tenets" BS.
And there is no reason to believe that the growth would not have continued without Amazon's participation.
There's the simple fact that many major non Amazon companies are also supporting Rust, so I don't see how this is uniquely Amazon's contributions.
This argument appears akin to the original article's "Rustacean principles are based on Amazon tenets" BS.
I don't see where you and the tweet disagree. Is this your position?
"Amazon must or should define Rust".
"Amazon must or should define Rust".
No one disagrees with that, I'd think? But where is the evidence that it's occurring as hinted in the thread?
"I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.
"I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.
I think that having a few prickly characters who have an extreme mistrust of large corporations is health and useful for a community that wants to keep its autonomy.
"Oh, representative of mega-corp, we can't do that . I agree it's a great idea and I would love to do it, but the zealots would revolt."
"Oh, representative of mega-corp, we can't do that . I agree it's a great idea and I would love to do it, but the zealots would revolt."
IMO Rust should have a future independent of Amazon. Ideally, we want everyone to be able to write Rust and not have it co-opted specifically for Amazon's purposes (I have no information that this is actually happening-- just reading the tweet like everyone else).
I wouldn't want a company like Google to think that Amazon has too much control over the direction of the language and choose not to use it, for example.
I wouldn't want a company like Google to think that Amazon has too much control over the direction of the language and choose not to use it, for example.
> They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language
Maybe, but that's only because Rust was valuable enough to them to do so. It also doesn't give them a pass on a takeover, if that is what's going on.
(No skin in this game. I just can't stand corporate gaslighting about how open source developers need to suck up abuse and like it because reasons.)
Maybe, but that's only because Rust was valuable enough to them to do so. It also doesn't give them a pass on a takeover, if that is what's going on.
(No skin in this game. I just can't stand corporate gaslighting about how open source developers need to suck up abuse and like it because reasons.)
Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles.
And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting?
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
How?
OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting?
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
How?
OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
> wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles.
Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
No? The fluff piece says this new document called “Rustacean Principles” originated from Amazon, which is true. And at a glance it seems fairly banal. https://rustacean-principles.netlify.app/
This is from Niko Matsakis himself: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...
As I note elsewhere, maintaining a list of individually unobjectionable principles seems innocuous, but it is via the principles omitted from the list being thereby made harder to appeal to that you can get bad results. And, the more there are, the easier it is to reject this or that request.
I skimmed it because it looked not worth my time. But even then, who was the person, and why does it matter they're inaccurate on some LinkedInsque piece? I'll continue to think this is standard large project FOSS drama.
I like Rust, and want to know if there's a real issue, however.
I like Rust, and want to know if there's a real issue, however.
jimbob45(1)
Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread?
> And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's.
These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part.
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
This sounds like the real concern, and it sounds really concerning, and I hope people come out to speak publicly and candidly about it. But it doesn't seem sensible to pretend that the making a list of adjectives is itself malign.
> And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's.
These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part.
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
This sounds like the real concern, and it sounds really concerning, and I hope people come out to speak publicly and candidly about it. But it doesn't seem sensible to pretend that the making a list of adjectives is itself malign.
> Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread?
When is there not? Tweets are a horrible medium for contextual information.
When is there not? Tweets are a horrible medium for contextual information.
Incredibly vague rants are designed to get people to take sides, presumably against Amazon, because they're big and therefor always doing evil.
This reads like drama for the sake of drama.
Edit: I should have said that posting this to HN is just posting drama. Using twitter to vent is fine, just not newsworthy in any way.
This reads like drama for the sake of drama.
Edit: I should have said that posting this to HN is just posting drama. Using twitter to vent is fine, just not newsworthy in any way.
Uh it is newsworthy. This isn't Kim K tweeting about a particularly painful hangnail. It has some serious ramifications for the future of Rust if Amazon is becoming too powerful in the community.
Seems to be related to this post: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...
The announcement blog post at https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru... says the initial version was "quite closely modeled on AWS tenets".
Tenets as used internally at AWS are a set of principles that each team decides for themselves, as guides in the face of ambiguity. There's no overarching set of tenets (that I'm aware of), so this is probably just referring to the idea of having a guiding set of principles to resolve tradeoffs.
This. Each org, team, and project has their own set of tenets. There are a few common sense tenets that are overarching (Security is priority 0), but there is no one set of 'AWS tenets.'
Tenets are used as quick statements to validate decisions. And the tenants are always up for debate and revision.
Using 'AWS tenets' isn't some nefarious way to control Rust. It's borrowing a useful (IMO) management/decision making structure to help guide decisions. Using 'AWS tenants' doesn't give AWS undue influence anymore than using the concept of Andon cords gives Toyota undue influence.
Tenets are used as quick statements to validate decisions. And the tenants are always up for debate and revision.
Using 'AWS tenets' isn't some nefarious way to control Rust. It's borrowing a useful (IMO) management/decision making structure to help guide decisions. Using 'AWS tenants' doesn't give AWS undue influence anymore than using the concept of Andon cords gives Toyota undue influence.
I disagree a lot. I don’t think using AWS Tenets was done nefariously.. but it has an important implication on the Rust community as a whole.
Engineers are really relying on the Rust Foundation to do right by them, and by adopting Amazon or other big tech company principles it’s spitting in the face of engineers who don’t trust them and adding the potential for bias in decision making of the foundation.
I’m hopeful that the Amazon contributors will understand this and show full support.
Engineers are really relying on the Rust Foundation to do right by them, and by adopting Amazon or other big tech company principles it’s spitting in the face of engineers who don’t trust them and adding the potential for bias in decision making of the foundation.
I’m hopeful that the Amazon contributors will understand this and show full support.
Again, Rust hasn't adopted Amazon's principals. It has adopted a mechanism used by Amazon by which it can define its own principles.
The tenets of the team I work on are stuff like 'treat every customer like your best friend on their worst day'. And 'learn something new every day'. They are tenets of a team in AWS, which makes them (to some extent) 'AWS tenets'.
Are they somehow nefarious because there are people who don't trust anything that remotely relates to Amazon? Or are they innocuous statements of intent that are applicable to most companies?
You don't have to like or trust Toyota to use Andon cords. You don't have to like or trust McKinsey to use the 7-S framework. You don't have to like or trust Motorola to use Six Sigma. You don't have to like or trust Amazon to use 'AWS tenets'.
The tenets of the team I work on are stuff like 'treat every customer like your best friend on their worst day'. And 'learn something new every day'. They are tenets of a team in AWS, which makes them (to some extent) 'AWS tenets'.
Are they somehow nefarious because there are people who don't trust anything that remotely relates to Amazon? Or are they innocuous statements of intent that are applicable to most companies?
You don't have to like or trust Toyota to use Andon cords. You don't have to like or trust McKinsey to use the 7-S framework. You don't have to like or trust Motorola to use Six Sigma. You don't have to like or trust Amazon to use 'AWS tenets'.
Right and now we are in semiconductor shortages because people adopted Toyota concepts in a non-Toyota context. In the mean time, Toyota adapted their own concepts to weather the storm of semiconductor shortages, for a short while atleast.
No, but you do have to trust said tenets and their application.
[deleted]
As the GP says, this probably refers to the practice of having short pithy statements to guide decision making. That is, AWS uses "Tenets" to help guide their decision making, Niko found that useful and wanted to do the same thing for Rust.
The post you linked to above links to a YouTube video[1] where he describes where the principles came from: some "design tenets" he came up with to help guide design of the async feature in Rust. Later he realized that they weren't specific to the async work, but were more about Rust in general. There has since been a lot of iteration involving others in the Rust community, and he's no longer calling them tenets.
And really, if you actually read the principles themselves, do they really sound like they're based on the design tenets that AWS uses? They sound an awful lot like principles that the Rust community has been using, but never articulated before. Maybe some more iteration is necessary, but it doesn't look very sinister.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSuXNmGZNA&t=2001s
The post you linked to above links to a YouTube video[1] where he describes where the principles came from: some "design tenets" he came up with to help guide design of the async feature in Rust. Later he realized that they weren't specific to the async work, but were more about Rust in general. There has since been a lot of iteration involving others in the Rust community, and he's no longer calling them tenets.
And really, if you actually read the principles themselves, do they really sound like they're based on the design tenets that AWS uses? They sound an awful lot like principles that the Rust community has been using, but never articulated before. Maybe some more iteration is necessary, but it doesn't look very sinister.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSuXNmGZNA&t=2001s
This is a misunderstanding. Amazon and AWS use "tenets" as a tool for focusing and aligning a team on what it values. The Rust Principles are an application of that tool for the Rust project, not adopting the exact same tenets that teams at Amazon/AWS use. See this 90 second video for a quick rundown of how tenets are used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5raEKA57PMY
(Disclosure, I'm an Amazon employee and am familiar with how Amazon uses Tenets for teams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5raEKA57PMY
(Disclosure, I'm an Amazon employee and am familiar with how Amazon uses Tenets for teams)
AWS tenets are good for AWS. Rust has its own tenets. Both should be kept separate.
Yes, that is exactly what is happening here! When the Rustacean Principles were created, Niko said in his blog post[1] that the idea of creating principles was inspired by AWS. Not that the principles themselves were taken from AWS.
Writing tenets is a tool, like making a checklist is a tool. You can use the idea of making a checklist without using the checklist items.
[1] https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2021/09/08/rus...
Writing tenets is a tool, like making a checklist is a tool. You can use the idea of making a checklist without using the checklist items.
[1] https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2021/09/08/rus...
AWS tenets are good inside of AWS. There is something oraclesque going on here.
Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too.
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. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get the ball rolling in a better direction.
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. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get the ball rolling in a better direction.
Because he is well known many will listen.
The not airing dirty laundry and not detailing the issue means no one knows what is going on and no one can help.
If it's a private fight I would understand if they wanted to keep it private. If it's a public issue what is happening.
The not airing dirty laundry and not detailing the issue means no one knows what is going on and no one can help.
If it's a private fight I would understand if they wanted to keep it private. If it's a public issue what is happening.
This is one of my pet peeves on social media. Nothing is worse than vague references to personal issues or something requiring inside knowledge, while the person refuses to elaborate (not saying this is true here, I haven't dug into this issue). If you're going to make it public, decide to actually make it public.
He could have expressed his concerns in a coherent blog post, that maybe could have sprawled a more serious discussion, we all know he's a good writer. Choosing to do this in a series of tweets tells just one thing - "nothing of substance here, move on".
> he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too.
Unfortunately, it seems we're getting the worst of both worlds: The dirty laundry is being aired in this thread, but the actual details are being withheld.
From the Tweet thread:
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusations.
Unfortunately, it seems we're getting the worst of both worlds: The dirty laundry is being aired in this thread, but the actual details are being withheld.
From the Tweet thread:
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusations.
> I'm not a fan of these "just trust me" accusations.
Feel free to disregard the trailing sentence. However, it's not fair do discard each and any substantiated accusation by trying to shift the attention to a passing comment, specially a common one which is used as a figure of speech.
Feel free to disregard the trailing sentence. However, it's not fair do discard each and any substantiated accusation by trying to shift the attention to a passing comment, specially a common one which is used as a figure of speech.
>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.
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.
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.
There is no substance to the tweets (it's his twitter account, go wild), and really has no business being here.
[deleted]
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.
---
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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.
> 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.
>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.
No, you really can't. Just by including the other points in the discussion, but being unwilling to extrapolate on them, shows bad faith (perhaps unintentionally) on the part of Steve and compromises the entire discussion. The only reason you include some vague "Amazon did shady shit" in a tweet is to elicit an emotional response on the part of the reader and immediately biases the argument against Amazon. The argument is not based on merit; it never can be now, because it's been tainted. This is known as "poisoning the well" [0].
Even in this thread, commenters are saying how they implicitly trust Steve not because of the merits of his argument, but because of his personal brand. He's (again, perhaps unintentionally) taking advantage of that fact by mud-slinging at Amazon, priming readers to already be biased against Amazon, and then once called out on it the response is "oh just ignore the fact that I did that and look at this other argument which I promise is more substantive". That's not arguing in good faith.
I see all that Steve has done for Rust and I see him post here (and on reddit) a lot, so I have respect for him. But this "discussion" was brought up completely the wrong way by him, and any outcome is going to be tainted. It'd be best to just let this current discussion die, and bring it up again in the future in a more appropriate manner.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
No, you really can't. Just by including the other points in the discussion, but being unwilling to extrapolate on them, shows bad faith (perhaps unintentionally) on the part of Steve and compromises the entire discussion. The only reason you include some vague "Amazon did shady shit" in a tweet is to elicit an emotional response on the part of the reader and immediately biases the argument against Amazon. The argument is not based on merit; it never can be now, because it's been tainted. This is known as "poisoning the well" [0].
Even in this thread, commenters are saying how they implicitly trust Steve not because of the merits of his argument, but because of his personal brand. He's (again, perhaps unintentionally) taking advantage of that fact by mud-slinging at Amazon, priming readers to already be biased against Amazon, and then once called out on it the response is "oh just ignore the fact that I did that and look at this other argument which I promise is more substantive". That's not arguing in good faith.
I see all that Steve has done for Rust and I see him post here (and on reddit) a lot, so I have respect for him. But this "discussion" was brought up completely the wrong way by him, and any outcome is going to be tainted. It'd be best to just let this current discussion die, and bring it up again in the future in a more appropriate manner.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
> Just by including the other points in the discussion, but being unwilling to extrapolate on them
That seems a bit strong. The statement was "won't go into rn (right now)".
> compromises the entire discussion.
It does. I'm not saying it causes no problems. I'm saying it shouldn't be grounds to immediately discount all other evidence given. It's perfectly valid as a modifier to another piece of evidence where you might use it to weight it, but I don't think it's valid to immediately ignore everything else said.
> The only reason you include some vague "Amazon did shady shit" in a tweet is to elicit an emotional response on the part of the reader and immediately biases the argument against Amazon.
No, that's one possible reason, it's not the only reason. Other possible reasons might be to signal other people more involved in the events in question that if they want to share their own story, perhaps now is the time and opening that makes that easier for them.
I agree that the presented argument would have been better without that statement, but that doesn't immediately negate the merit of what else is presented.
> The argument is not based on merit; it never can be now, because it's been tainted. This is known as "poisoning the well" [0].
The mistake you're making is in assuming that poisoning the well applies to and discredits non-dependent clauses. It should be easy to see how this applies when you consider the two statements "You should beware of John, he's made some threatening gestures to me and you in the past, and I there's been some assaults in the area" and "You should beware of John, he's threatening gestures to me and you in the past and multiple people have seen him assault three people recently." In one case it's used to imply guilt of something that is not factually proven or stated, in the other there's a fact to readily look into for confirmation that you can use as evidence to make up your own mind. That someone uses a call to emotion beforehand should not immediately discount that fact from consideration.
> Even in this thread, commenters are saying how they implicitly trust Steve not because of the merits of his argument, but because of his personal brand.
That's not what I've said, and not what I'm asking of you.
> But this "discussion" was brought up completely the wrong way by him, and any outcome is going to be tainted.
It may be tainted in some way. That doesn't mean easily verifiable facts should be ignored.
To be absolutely clear, since it seems very hard for some people to get my point, I have no qualms with your mistrusting him, or thinking his factual statements have no merit or are not problematic enough to act on. I just don't think it's valid to completely ignore the factual statements and refuse to consider them as you seemed to indicate you were doing because he also says "Amazon is being a meany in other ways too" and doesn't expound on it, and some other statements may not be as well supported as they could.
That seems a bit strong. The statement was "won't go into rn (right now)".
> compromises the entire discussion.
It does. I'm not saying it causes no problems. I'm saying it shouldn't be grounds to immediately discount all other evidence given. It's perfectly valid as a modifier to another piece of evidence where you might use it to weight it, but I don't think it's valid to immediately ignore everything else said.
> The only reason you include some vague "Amazon did shady shit" in a tweet is to elicit an emotional response on the part of the reader and immediately biases the argument against Amazon.
No, that's one possible reason, it's not the only reason. Other possible reasons might be to signal other people more involved in the events in question that if they want to share their own story, perhaps now is the time and opening that makes that easier for them.
I agree that the presented argument would have been better without that statement, but that doesn't immediately negate the merit of what else is presented.
> The argument is not based on merit; it never can be now, because it's been tainted. This is known as "poisoning the well" [0].
The mistake you're making is in assuming that poisoning the well applies to and discredits non-dependent clauses. It should be easy to see how this applies when you consider the two statements "You should beware of John, he's made some threatening gestures to me and you in the past, and I there's been some assaults in the area" and "You should beware of John, he's threatening gestures to me and you in the past and multiple people have seen him assault three people recently." In one case it's used to imply guilt of something that is not factually proven or stated, in the other there's a fact to readily look into for confirmation that you can use as evidence to make up your own mind. That someone uses a call to emotion beforehand should not immediately discount that fact from consideration.
> Even in this thread, commenters are saying how they implicitly trust Steve not because of the merits of his argument, but because of his personal brand.
That's not what I've said, and not what I'm asking of you.
> But this "discussion" was brought up completely the wrong way by him, and any outcome is going to be tainted.
It may be tainted in some way. That doesn't mean easily verifiable facts should be ignored.
To be absolutely clear, since it seems very hard for some people to get my point, I have no qualms with your mistrusting him, or thinking his factual statements have no merit or are not problematic enough to act on. I just don't think it's valid to completely ignore the factual statements and refuse to consider them as you seemed to indicate you were doing because he also says "Amazon is being a meany in other ways too" and doesn't expound on it, and some other statements may not be as well supported as they could.
> 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?
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?
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> Its not ignoring!
Look a the comment I originally responded to. They complained that two out of three items had no substance, therefore we can't have a serious conversation. That is, specifically, what I was addressing.
> 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.
It's specifically stated in the tweet. Not having an executive director leaves the chair with more power. Amazon is the chair. Amazon has chosen to let the position go unfilled which results in their own position having more power.
He goes into more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
Actually asking questions about that, like you are here, is the outcome I was calling for, as opposed to ignoring it because of other statements, as the original comment I replied to was.
> 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.
No, you're placing me as someone on the one side of the argument, when the side is irrelevant. My point was that ignoring everything said because of portions that don't add up is not a valid way to assess the information. That doesn't require me to take a side, and in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point and assume my goal is something else, as I suspect you did.
Look a the comment I originally responded to. They complained that two out of three items had no substance, therefore we can't have a serious conversation. That is, specifically, what I was addressing.
> 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.
It's specifically stated in the tweet. Not having an executive director leaves the chair with more power. Amazon is the chair. Amazon has chosen to let the position go unfilled which results in their own position having more power.
He goes into more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
Actually asking questions about that, like you are here, is the outcome I was calling for, as opposed to ignoring it because of other statements, as the original comment I replied to was.
> 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.
No, you're placing me as someone on the one side of the argument, when the side is irrelevant. My point was that ignoring everything said because of portions that don't add up is not a valid way to assess the information. That doesn't require me to take a side, and in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point and assume my goal is something else, as I suspect you did.
> in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point
The problem is that, it is pretty clear, that based on how many people have agree with me, that this guy was unclear.
There was obviously a lot of confusion here. And that is a valid criticism of this person.
> My point was that ignoring everything said
The fact that so many people are confused about what the guy is saying, is on him.
He should have communicated better. And no, it is not everyone else's fault, that basically everyone misunderstood his point.
> He goes into more detail here
Well maybe he should have done a better job of communicating his ideas, from the very beginning. That's on him.
The fact that he was so bad at saying what the problem was, and why we should care, from the very beginning, is a valid problem.
> is not a valid way to assess the information.
No, it is not on the public to have to cross reference hacker news posts, with tweets, with blogs posts, to figure out why we should care.
That is the job of the communicator. And if you communicate it poorly, then that is your failing.
The problem is that, it is pretty clear, that based on how many people have agree with me, that this guy was unclear.
There was obviously a lot of confusion here. And that is a valid criticism of this person.
> My point was that ignoring everything said
The fact that so many people are confused about what the guy is saying, is on him.
He should have communicated better. And no, it is not everyone else's fault, that basically everyone misunderstood his point.
> He goes into more detail here
Well maybe he should have done a better job of communicating his ideas, from the very beginning. That's on him.
The fact that he was so bad at saying what the problem was, and why we should care, from the very beginning, is a valid problem.
> is not a valid way to assess the information.
No, it is not on the public to have to cross reference hacker news posts, with tweets, with blogs posts, to figure out why we should care.
That is the job of the communicator. And if you communicate it poorly, then that is your failing.
You continue to ignore the point I'm making and the context I made it in, in what appears to be an effort to push your own agenda. You can feel free to to that, but I don't see a reason to continue my part in this conversation when it feels like you're not attempting to actually engage with me.
If you care about why I think it's not worth continuing, and why I've come to this conclusion, I suggest you attempt to re-read what I wrote previously with a more open mind and instead of trying to drag it back into the specific argument. In any case, have a good evening.
If you care about why I think it's not worth continuing, and why I've come to this conclusion, I suggest you attempt to re-read what I wrote previously with a more open mind and instead of trying to drag it back into the specific argument. In any case, have a good evening.
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
More than he has to? Dude already named names. Cat's out of the bag, might as well go all the way.
Either air dirty laundry or don't, then. "They are super shady, trust me" is worse than both.
I assume that Amazon getting too much control is a real problem. But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or at least he is the one that is supposed to write articles about what Rust is about. Not someone from Amazon or anywhere else.
> But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or...
Oh, don't post this kind of personal attacks.
Oh, don't post this kind of personal attacks.
It's not a personal attack. It's just a theory. There was nothing substantive in the article.
There was nothing substantive in the article because it got edited soon after his tweet. https://web.archive.org/web/20210913110658/https://www.infow...
He's pointing out big changes coming to control of the Rust foundation and positing that Rust foundation being controlled by one large single corporate entity probably is not a good thing. Nothing in there seemed to me like he wanted to be the one in control.
I do not think Rust is about me. Note that I specifically say that Rust should not be about any individual, let alone a company. I’ve made my case against BDFLs for years.
senderista(1)
That is a problem. Perl 6 and Python 3 did not go well.
Agreed. Amazon might start off with good intentions, but it won't end nicely.
The first tweet links to an InfoWorld article (pseudo-paywall and many ads):
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
Steve is probably objecting to the paragraph that starts, "Given that Matsakis and Miller both work at AWS, it's not surprising that the [Rustacean] principles started out as a spin on Amazonian tenets."
https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
Steve is probably objecting to the paragraph that starts, "Given that Matsakis and Miller both work at AWS, it's not surprising that the [Rustacean] principles started out as a spin on Amazonian tenets."
>> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
> This sounds like the real concern
I actually think it distracts from their argument. Either say something or don 't. What purpose do vague accusations have here? Scare Amazon into behaving so not to get bad press? If the actions are concerning enough that Amazon should not have full-control, then why wouldn't those actions still not be pertinent if they do not define Rust.
> This sounds like the real concern
I actually think it distracts from their argument. Either say something or don 't. What purpose do vague accusations have here? Scare Amazon into behaving so not to get bad press? If the actions are concerning enough that Amazon should not have full-control, then why wouldn't those actions still not be pertinent if they do not define Rust.
What is the issue?
Companies & languages, the only issue I am aware of is Oracle suing Google over the use of Java. Are they concern that Amazon will sue the users of Rust language?
Companies & languages, the only issue I am aware of is Oracle suing Google over the use of Java. Are they concern that Amazon will sue the users of Rust language?
The language and everything around it are always changing. Which ways they change involve hard choices. The way things are going, you won't know about a big change in direction until after it is all settled. It is no idle worry.
It is always hard to imagine how this or that corporation might be at odds with what benefits a language user community. But it is not at all hard for any particular corporation to discover such differences, or to act on those discoveries where they can.
It is always hard to imagine how this or that corporation might be at odds with what benefits a language user community. But it is not at all hard for any particular corporation to discover such differences, or to act on those discoveries where they can.
The Rust Foundation has indeed been disappointingly opaque.
Their website contains only anodyne director bios and board meeting minutes. The minutes go up to May's meeting, with most of the content omitted under a "Private Session" heading.
AIUI the main need for a foundation was so they could own the Rust domain names and trademarks. Eight months later, I've seen no announcement on whether any progress has been made with this.
Their website contains only anodyne director bios and board meeting minutes. The minutes go up to May's meeting, with most of the content omitted under a "Private Session" heading.
AIUI the main need for a foundation was so they could own the Rust domain names and trademarks. Eight months later, I've seen no announcement on whether any progress has been made with this.
I don’t actually see how Amazon stewardship is a bad thing. Corporate custody has been the case for several useful programming languages, with Java, .NET, and Go being obvious and popular examples. Replacing a core team of advocacy-oriented developers with production-oriented developers might give the project a positive new direction too. After all, a popular, design-by-committee compiled language with RAII memory management that targets LLVM already exists.
If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.
If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.
Just based on the technology side: When using their systems a big thing, seems to be repackage and rebuild existing systems and create a load of new jargon.
The systems seem to be islands, the effect is that at every place they are separated, billing can be introduced.
Everywhere, where new names and jargon are introduced lock-in is introduced.
I cannot see it being good for the medium or long term health.
So the worst case is Amazon makes the compiler or some tool or integration a paid service? Is paying for a well-maintained compiler a problem? Ada, Java, FORTRAN, and (I think) Julia all do this, right?
The only existing implementation of Julia in case that I know of is fully open source and MIT licensed.
It is well maintained and high performance :)
It is well maintained and high performance :)
There are the products and tools only available via Julia Computing.
It's working out great for Qt and Java...
Do we expect too much? Just like with Mozilla? We want them to be a force for good, but they also need to be effective. Though this is less true for Rust than for Mozilla, Rust the language shouldn't really need a revenue
I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles:
* “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
* “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.”
* “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.”
* “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.”
* “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.”
* “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”
I don't really see what the problem is. They aren't particularly Amazonian principles, and they all seem like good things to strive for.
My biggest complaint would be having Amazonians having control over feature roadmap and code acceptance. Amazon's priorities very often are in direct conflict with literally everyone else's priorities. Not to mention the fact that I've seen a lot of code at Amazon, know how nightmarish it is, and can reasonably infer that the internal politics at Amazon do not allow for, and often penalize, quality code. It is not at all unthinkable that some department with stupid priorities and lots of political clout pushes through some half-baked shit bonanza that will bite everyone else in the ass. That is a problem.
* “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
* “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.”
* “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.”
* “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.”
* “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.”
* “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”
I don't really see what the problem is. They aren't particularly Amazonian principles, and they all seem like good things to strive for.
My biggest complaint would be having Amazonians having control over feature roadmap and code acceptance. Amazon's priorities very often are in direct conflict with literally everyone else's priorities. Not to mention the fact that I've seen a lot of code at Amazon, know how nightmarish it is, and can reasonably infer that the internal politics at Amazon do not allow for, and often penalize, quality code. It is not at all unthinkable that some department with stupid priorities and lots of political clout pushes through some half-baked shit bonanza that will bite everyone else in the ass. That is a problem.
The problem is that they are bromides and claptrap, not principles. There is an important distinction to be made here between principles and values, which they are not making in part because Amazon themselves do not understand the difference.[0] Having a community define its values is important[1], but this is emphatically not the way to do it -- and these are not it besides.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
[1] https://vimeo.com/230142234
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc
[1] https://vimeo.com/230142234
Yes, also known as platitudes.
However, "if it compiles, it works" is a bit more in line with Rust's unique ambitions. The rest are quite generic.
However, "if it compiles, it works" is a bit more in line with Rust's unique ambitions. The rest are quite generic.
Honestly, I take issue with all of them -- including that one. "If it compiles, it works" is demonstrably false, and pernicious in perhaps surprising ways. As a concrete example, I believe the DWARF support for Rust to be extremely important -- but why would one invest in improving that if "it compiles, it works"? I know that undermining debugging infrastructure is not the intent here, but that's kind of the point: words are important, and the ones that have been chosen for these are exceedingly sloppy.
I for one would be interested in a worked example for how you think this could be better, maybe as part of the internals thread?
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-rustacean-princi...
https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-rustacean-princi...
Sure, but is this existential? The CoC has platitudes, too. Why is this some scary takeover?
You need to read below the fold to see the Amazon Leadership Principles (the ones that make Amazon a shitty place to work at):
How to Rustacean
Be kind and considerate
Bring joy to the user
Show up
Recognize others’ knowledge
Start somewhere
Follow through
Pay it forward
Trust and delegate
How to Rustacean
Be kind and considerate
Bring joy to the user
Show up
Recognize others’ knowledge
Start somewhere
Follow through
Pay it forward
Trust and delegate
The interesting part is what's missing. There is no mention of "Openness" or "Community", for example.
In terms of how to run a tech foundation, no (former) employee of Mozilla has any standing to talk. Mozilla has watched Firefox market share evaporate, laid off core tech teams, all the while increasing the pay of their leadership.
I am completely willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, and let them be involved in the Rust foundation as they see fit.
The great thing about open source, is that the code is open source. If enough developers don't like the way stuff is being handled, they are free to fork.
I am completely willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, and let them be involved in the Rust foundation as they see fit.
The great thing about open source, is that the code is open source. If enough developers don't like the way stuff is being handled, they are free to fork.
[deleted]
,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.''
,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.''
Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.
,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.''
Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.
"making deals" is the wrong characterization. "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.
Sure, I understand that, but the tweetstorm is very non-specific. The only reason why I share your concern is because you built an amazing personal brand.
I tried to be very specific in my issue with what is public knowledge: Amazon has outsized influence in the project, and is continuing to wield it to gain more. I even cited specific ways in which that is happening.
I was also vague about other things because they're secondary concerns to the main one. If Amazon stops trying to be in total control of Rust, I'll be happy.
I was also vague about other things because they're secondary concerns to the main one. If Amazon stops trying to be in total control of Rust, I'll be happy.
> "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.
Yes, it typically is. However making non-falsifiable public accusations that individuals are doing "dirty shit" is not keeping things "private" and is even worse than making a concrete public statement about a concern you may have.
Yes, it typically is. However making non-falsifiable public accusations that individuals are doing "dirty shit" is not keeping things "private" and is even worse than making a concrete public statement about a concern you may have.
Perhaps it isn't and it's actually good not to go very confrontational right from the start?
Given the tweets, I think we are past the point of no confrontation.
(I was aiming at "not telling everything" is a friendlier tone than telling everything and possibly losing all trust)
I get that but tweeting "they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn." is the kind of statement that burns bridges pretty hard.
You're talking in public now and bring the discussion into the public in the least professional way possible.
The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet:
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617
To summarize:
* Amazon has too much administrative influence
* Amazon has marginalized the core team
* also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon
I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects.
[edited to fix formatting]
To summarize:
* Amazon has too much administrative influence
* Amazon has marginalized the core team
* also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon
I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects.
[edited to fix formatting]
> But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects.
I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined? Or is this a deeper objection about the existence of a corporate-sponsored Rust Foundation?
I'm also confused by the claims that "Amazon has decided not to have a Rust Foundation ED" when the Rust Foundation is in the midst of an Executive Director search: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined? Or is this a deeper objection about the existence of a corporate-sponsored Rust Foundation?
I'm also confused by the claims that "Amazon has decided not to have a Rust Foundation ED" when the Rust Foundation is in the midst of an Executive Director search: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
On that last bit, I elaborated on it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
Could you elaborate on what is so important about the chair of the foundation? From what I understand, it's not really stewardship of the language so much as stewardship of a bunch of administrative minutiae.
Administrative minutiae is important. The foundation controls our IP and a large pot of money. How that is used matters. I am not taking any beef with specific moves here, just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot, more than most people probably realize.
Can you elaborate on what the money is currently used for and what the risk here is? Is Amazon attempting to move more Rust infrastructure to AWS?
We have used AWS since long before Amazon was a supporter of Rust, and then they started supporting us, and I am grateful to it. Paying for Rust's infrastructure, as far as I know, is not cheap.
I am not a member of the foundation and so can't really speak to what is being spent currently. As far as I know a public budget has not been posted.
The risk is that they can set the direction to anything. They might be amazing stewards, they might spend it all on useless things. We don't yet know. I do know that many of the folks in the foundation have their hearts in the right place.
Again, the theme isn't about specific actions, it is about consolidation of control.
I am not a member of the foundation and so can't really speak to what is being spent currently. As far as I know a public budget has not been posted.
The risk is that they can set the direction to anything. They might be amazing stewards, they might spend it all on useless things. We don't yet know. I do know that many of the folks in the foundation have their hearts in the right place.
Again, the theme isn't about specific actions, it is about consolidation of control.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would also love to eventually read a clear-eyed breakdown of the current situation and relevant history.
If you find a time when you feel your head is clear enough to write a detailed summary I'm sure many others would benefit from reading it as well. It's probably important to ensure that anything like this is written when your emotions are extremely well-managed, and also important to run it by many of the coolest, most-level headed colleagues that you trust -- and heavily weight their revisions.
I also congratulate the Rust team on getting to a point where they've made something valuable enough that worrying about regressive corporate influence is even warranted. I really do owe Rustaceans a large thanks for building something I enjoy so much.
Hopefully Rust can grow in a healthy way with generous corporate support, and find the guardrails necessary to mitigate the usual negative consequences that come along with the benefits.
If you find a time when you feel your head is clear enough to write a detailed summary I'm sure many others would benefit from reading it as well. It's probably important to ensure that anything like this is written when your emotions are extremely well-managed, and also important to run it by many of the coolest, most-level headed colleagues that you trust -- and heavily weight their revisions.
I also congratulate the Rust team on getting to a point where they've made something valuable enough that worrying about regressive corporate influence is even warranted. I really do owe Rustaceans a large thanks for building something I enjoy so much.
Hopefully Rust can grow in a healthy way with generous corporate support, and find the guardrails necessary to mitigate the usual negative consequences that come along with the benefits.
>just pointing out that a single organization controls a lot, more than most people probably realize.
>Again, specifically: what control are you worried about? I suspect that you think the foundation has powers it does not have. [0]
These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. Did something changed in the last few months?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126077
>Again, specifically: what control are you worried about? I suspect that you think the foundation has powers it does not have. [0]
These statements seem somewhat contradictory to me. Did something changed in the last few months?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26126077
I did not expect that this would happen back then, but it has happened now. I was wrong.
(I also thought they were saying the foundation was exerting control over the language, which is incorrect, strictly speaking. The foundation has no formal powers over the language itself.)
(I also thought they were saying the foundation was exerting control over the language, which is incorrect, strictly speaking. The foundation has no formal powers over the language itself.)
If anything, I now find myself more inclined to believe your contentions; you approached this issue as a skeptic and still walked away believing there to be a significant area of concern.
The ED detail buried in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437450014507376649
--- cut here ---
sorry, the tweet length got me here!
they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on
--- cut here ---
sorry, the tweet length got me here!
they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on
What is "ED" in this context?
Executive Director.
after reading around a bit I think it means "executive director" (not super familiar with this matter)
I think executive director.
See Steve’s comments here, which clarifies why cutting the executive director (ED) is a problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
> Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation?
Bingo.
Bingo.
Rust isn't the only community that's at risk of getting coopted by corporate sponsors. The PostgreSQL core team now has an explicit policy that no single company employs more than half its members -- but to follow it, last year, they had to expand membership (after companies employing 50% of the prior core team merged, and they didn't want to boot anyone).
https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre...
https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre...
That's a decent balacing mechanism as a starting base. Your link raises interesting points though.
Oddly enough, the post you linked to is from the blog of Fundación PostgreSQL, which is also being discussed on HN today due to a dispute with the PostgreSQL core team:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512274
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28512274
Charming. Just grabbed the first link that described the issue. But yeah, the Spanish organization seems... confused at best regarding its own role.
[deleted]
Here is the full response from Álvaro Hernández at Fundación PostgreSQL:
https://postgresql.fund/blog/postgres-core-team-attacks-post...
https://postgresql.fund/blog/postgres-core-team-attacks-post...
Honestly that's also sort of a sad statement on the current state of affairs as far as corporate consolidation goes these days.
It's worth noting that this has been an informal rule for over 20 years, the organisations in question are Postgres specific specialists and the developers in question have long histories with the project. I don't think it's quite the same to be honest.
the situation is not the same, but the familiar corporate pressures expected to emerge and the reasons for the rule are the same: it bears scrutiny and oversight. If an erosion of trust in a group like this is not something to worry about, what is?
The worry is that "If my livelihood, and that of those whom I work with every day, were in jeopardy, I would be tempted to use my authority for the good of my company over the good of the broader user base."
Which... I find it hard to imagine a random selection of individuals, the majority of which wouldn't be susceptible to that. Everyone has to eat, and there are always catastrophes in business eventually.
Which... I find it hard to imagine a random selection of individuals, the majority of which wouldn't be susceptible to that. Everyone has to eat, and there are always catastrophes in business eventually.
The Python Software Foundation has also been addressing this issue recently.
This year they changed their bylaws to say that no more than a quarter of the directors may share an affiliation.
https://github.com/VanL/psf-bylaws/compare/9666a3a397c30fa7c...
(As far as I can make out, previously they just said that directors had to make their affiliation publicly known.)
This year they changed their bylaws to say that no more than a quarter of the directors may share an affiliation.
https://github.com/VanL/psf-bylaws/compare/9666a3a397c30fa7c...
(As far as I can make out, previously they just said that directors had to make their affiliation publicly known.)
Honestly this is what I was afraid of when Mozilla backed off on Rust support and Amazon and others stepped in to fill the gap. One of the main selling points for me to start learning Rust was the truly open-source pedigree - with Mozilla backing it there seemed to be very few perverse incentives going against Rust's goals of having a great developer story.
If Amazon would be in the drivers' seat, that incentive structure would seem much less clear.
If Amazon would be in the drivers' seat, that incentive structure would seem much less clear.
To be clear, the Rust Foundation has no influence over the design or development of the language, stdlib, or tooling. Those are duties of the dedicated Rust teams listed at https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/ , and the foundation has no power to determine the membership of those teams.
This is concerning to say the least.
Steve should write a blog post to flesh out his criticism.
I'm fine with Steve. I want Amazon to write a blog post to flesh out the criticism.
Serious: what did anyone involved think would happen?
Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away.
Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong.
Let's watch the show.
Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong.
Let's watch the show.
They're doing it now. Check out the flagged dead comments libeling Klabnik.
Not all of those are necessarily intentionally libelous. Many could be based on misunderstandings caused by reading the InfoWorld article before it was updated to be somewhat less of a paean to Amazon, or not reading it at all.
> Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away.
But will Google let Go rust away?
But will Google let Go rust away?
The platinum members of the Rust Foundation are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Mozilla, and Huawei.
I'd pretty much prefer that none of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.
I'd pretty much prefer that none of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.
[deleted]
genuinely curious, has there been any evidence in the past of large corporations decreasing the quality of programming languages that they have influence over?
I know some people took issue with Oracle buying Sun and controlling Java, and I think it had something to do with licensing. Perhaps that doesn't qualify, though.
I was ... let's say "apprehensive" ... when I heard Oracle had purchased Sun, and thus control of Java.
However, with the exception of some communication missteps around the licensing changes (which actually ended up in fully open source JDK, as opposed to the mostly open source JDK in Sun's time), Java has actually done great under Oracle.
Amazing what having resources can do for a project, eh?
I mean, I'm not thrilled with the licensing model around GraalVM (since it's another "mostly" open source situation), but business is business, I guess. I'd personally prefer that they treat it the same as Java proper, and fund it via support contracts/subscriptions.
However, with the exception of some communication missteps around the licensing changes (which actually ended up in fully open source JDK, as opposed to the mostly open source JDK in Sun's time), Java has actually done great under Oracle.
Amazing what having resources can do for a project, eh?
I mean, I'm not thrilled with the licensing model around GraalVM (since it's another "mostly" open source situation), but business is business, I guess. I'd personally prefer that they treat it the same as Java proper, and fund it via support contracts/subscriptions.
Companies do periodically try to take over C++. Several have sought to throw their weight around by sending numerous extra bodies to vote at selected ISO C++ Committee meetings. They do not often succeed at that, but some have continuously outsized influence on the process, at all levels, just by their sheer amount of participation.
The people they send to meetings on a regular basis do a great deal of important work, and they often disagree among themselves. But sometimes marching orders evidently come down.
There was a recent concerted effort to define a process to determine when and where backward ABI compatibility should be abandoned, which would have made it much easier to bring about such occasions.
Maintaining a list of individually unobjectionable principles seems innocuous, but it is via the principles omitted from the list being thereby made harder to appeal to that you can get bad results. And, the more there are, the easier it is to reject this or that request.
The people they send to meetings on a regular basis do a great deal of important work, and they often disagree among themselves. But sometimes marching orders evidently come down.
There was a recent concerted effort to define a process to determine when and where backward ABI compatibility should be abandoned, which would have made it much easier to bring about such occasions.
Maintaining a list of individually unobjectionable principles seems innocuous, but it is via the principles omitted from the list being thereby made harder to appeal to that you can get bad results. And, the more there are, the easier it is to reject this or that request.
I mean what Steve says makes sense. Steve is far move involved with Rust.
However independently reading those documents from Amazon I felt "God, Rust seems more corporate language then even Go, Java or Swift."
However independently reading those documents from Amazon I felt "God, Rust seems more corporate language then even Go, Java or Swift."
Define "corporate language". All of those languages are more or less completely dominated by a single corporate sponsor with a significant portion of the decisions and discussions being done internally, so the potential for drama to spill out is a bit less.
What are the concerns? Could Amazon fork rust? Personally, I've never cared about the politics behind software projects.
I have questions:
1. Can you really blame it on Amazon?
2. Shouldn't you actually blaming that on other companies too, like the rest of the FAANGs for starters, for not hiring rust contributors?
3. Aren't the people involved with Rust at Amazon at fault for putting up with the supposedly dirty stuff without saying a word? The paycheck is too fat to do the right thing?
I'm honestly quite fed up with the hypocritical BS of our industry. Mr Klabnik is calling out Amazon, while not calling out the people that prefer the proverbial "fat paycheck" over "the right thing".
I'm quite fed up of people calling out FAANG and similar companies for their toxic behavior while working there in the name of the fat paycheck, or applying as often as possible to get a job there, effectively contributing to those toxic behavior (directly or indirectly).
Those people the Mr Klabnik is so explicit in defending are probably smart and competent enough to go work anywhere, there are probably a number of companies that would accept them to work on Rust. Yet they stay at Amazon.
It's not Amazon's fault here.
The fault is in the people from the Rust team deciding to work/stay at Amazon.
I call BS.
(edit: i'm getting downvoted yet this post hasn't received a proper reply yet)
1. Can you really blame it on Amazon?
2. Shouldn't you actually blaming that on other companies too, like the rest of the FAANGs for starters, for not hiring rust contributors?
3. Aren't the people involved with Rust at Amazon at fault for putting up with the supposedly dirty stuff without saying a word? The paycheck is too fat to do the right thing?
I'm honestly quite fed up with the hypocritical BS of our industry. Mr Klabnik is calling out Amazon, while not calling out the people that prefer the proverbial "fat paycheck" over "the right thing".
I'm quite fed up of people calling out FAANG and similar companies for their toxic behavior while working there in the name of the fat paycheck, or applying as often as possible to get a job there, effectively contributing to those toxic behavior (directly or indirectly).
Those people the Mr Klabnik is so explicit in defending are probably smart and competent enough to go work anywhere, there are probably a number of companies that would accept them to work on Rust. Yet they stay at Amazon.
It's not Amazon's fault here.
The fault is in the people from the Rust team deciding to work/stay at Amazon.
I call BS.
(edit: i'm getting downvoted yet this post hasn't received a proper reply yet)
Answers to none of the questions you ask matter. If Amazon were not in a position throw its weight around, none of the questions would arise.
I actually really like Zig's stance on this. Not having company members on the Board + trying to employ developers from the community helps with the issues that Rust is currently facing. Of course due to Rust's history things work differently, but hopefully Steve's comments will get them to look at this issue more critically
I guess this is one of the benefits of having the language direction owned by a single author - they might feel a bit more empowered to make this kind of principled stance in the face of strong incentives to trade funding for corporate guidance.
Sure, but we're not just doing things out of principle. We have a clear plan on how to be sustainable without giving up seats. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, there are some compromises to make, but we know what we want and what we're willing to give up in exchange.
I wrote a while ago my thoughts here:
https://kristoff.it/blog/the-open-source-game/
I wrote a while ago my thoughts here:
https://kristoff.it/blog/the-open-source-game/
Zig is a very immature language without any real corporate backing. Things get hard when an open source project gets mature and incredibly useful for corporations.
Well, this is already starting to change. As an example Coil (coil.com) has written a distributed financial database called TigerBeetle (tigerbeetle.com) entirely in Zig. All of this will be part of the open source stack that they plan to offer to third paties that want to get into the interledger (interledger.org) business, a piece of financial infrastructure key to make web monetization (webmonetization.org) real, among other things.
While I hope this gets sorted out in a nice way, I do hope Amazon's influence brings more focus on to using Rust for Web services. A lot of people and companies are using it as a systems language but it definitely has some good potential to compete with Go and Java in web services segment. Of course, the ecosystem is almost there but its not deep enough to be fully say yes for arewewebyet.com
So far I've only followed Rust peripherally, but if Amazon is going to drive it, that makes me more interested in adopting it. Experience with Scala, and contrast with Golang and TypeScript, makes me want to use a language that has a strong corporate backer.
As far as I understand it, I think the desire here is for diversity in backers; Steve (and Mozilla) wasn't comfortable with Mozilla being the strongest influence, and he just wants to make it clear he disagrees with Amazon replacing Mozilla in that respect. It sounds like he is totally appreciative of the support Rust's ecosystem has received already and will continue to receive.
I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that.
Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.
Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.
The primary goal of Rust has never been to
'Take over' C++ or to convince as many C++ orgs and developers to switch.
Please provide more specifics so we can learn from their concerns ... Experienced C++ developers have been an essential part of moving Rust forward.
> I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that.
What positive reasons can you offer that suggest Amazon will be a good steward for Rust's continued success?
You think Rust has failed? Wow. What are your expectations for a new language to 'overtake' a behemoth in terms of adoption? Can you share any examples that underlie your expectations?
I admit ignorance when it comes to Amazon's contributions to the open source community. This is not willful -- I just have not noticed much discussion or mention of them. (We all know about their contributions to computing infrastructure of course.)
What positive reasons can you offer that suggest Amazon will be a good steward for Rust's continued success?
You think Rust has failed? Wow. What are your expectations for a new language to 'overtake' a behemoth in terms of adoption? Can you share any examples that underlie your expectations?
I admit ignorance when it comes to Amazon's contributions to the open source community. This is not willful -- I just have not noticed much discussion or mention of them. (We all know about their contributions to computing infrastructure of course.)
I think that folks that are asking Steve for more details are not being unreasonable. It came as somewhat surprising to me (and probably to most folks who are not involved with the core/admin side of Rust).
However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The objective seems to be basically to let them know that if they continue with their current behavior, it will be met with resistance. He is taking a risk though because we don't know enough to have an informed view of the actions that might have triggered this.
However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The objective seems to be basically to let them know that if they continue with their current behavior, it will be met with resistance. He is taking a risk though because we don't know enough to have an informed view of the actions that might have triggered this.
It's not unreasonable, but I think we'll have to wait to see if it's necessary.
It seems to me that he has tried to make a point in private, but it got dismissed.
It's very common to see power structures evolve into an unbalanced state, even with everybody trying to do the best thing.
Hopefully some spotlights are enough to get to a workable balance.
It seems to me that he has tried to make a point in private, but it got dismissed.
It's very common to see power structures evolve into an unbalanced state, even with everybody trying to do the best thing.
Hopefully some spotlights are enough to get to a workable balance.
Steve should layout his grievances publicly. I'd trust Steve more than Amazon, but at this point we need to understand what is going on.
As leadership/control seems to be mostly on the domain name, name, logo and Github repository; at this point it's possible to fork the project and move to another leadership. There is enough traction, in my opinion, that the "marginalized core devs" could take on the project again. The contributions made by Amazon could then be merged selectively.
As leadership/control seems to be mostly on the domain name, name, logo and Github repository; at this point it's possible to fork the project and move to another leadership. There is enough traction, in my opinion, that the "marginalized core devs" could take on the project again. The contributions made by Amazon could then be merged selectively.
While we could certainly use FAANG-level $$, situations like this make me glad Haskell has especially little usage in SV.
This is what happens when you seek (success at all costs)
>I want big companies to be involved in Rust
Why?
Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg.
I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.
Why?
Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg.
I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.
I don't think it's possible to build a production grade programming language today without large amounts of capital. Unfortunately, companies are the only way to gain access to that amount of money.
I elaborated a bit on that over here: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976
I elaborated a bit on that over here: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976
Elm did it. :)
Elm isn't as big as Rust or other languages, but it's definitely production-grade (in that loads of companies are using it in production), and the only capital that's been put into it is approximately one full-time software engineer being paid to work on it for 5ish years.
Elm isn't as big as Rust or other languages, but it's definitely production-grade (in that loads of companies are using it in production), and the only capital that's been put into it is approximately one full-time software engineer being paid to work on it for 5ish years.
Challenge accepted >:-)
I'm rooting for you :)
Here's hoping you finally get lambdas and destructors, and can step up.
Thanks for the feedback - I created a special issue tracker that gets higher priority, can you submit your proposal there? https://is.gd/WVZvnI
Or not, I guess.
I was, like Steve, rooting for you. Not so sure now...
I was, like Steve, rooting for you. Not so sure now...
Big (Tech) companies, especially Amazon, are non-capitalist in the sense that are large bureaucracies with complex internal economic planning mechanisms insulated from the "free market". Amazon has tremendous economic planning capability, perhaps more than Stalin's CPSU ever did. That doesn't mean they are "socialist", of course--they are denizens of the mixed economy, "islands of conscious power in this ocean of unconscious co-operation like lumps of butter coagulating in a pail of buttermilk.” [1].
Truly "capitalist" companies won't/can't scale beyond a few hundred employees before imploding under the weight of individualist inefficiency. I think Valve is an (in)famous example of this in the tech space.
[1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335...
Truly "capitalist" companies won't/can't scale beyond a few hundred employees before imploding under the weight of individualist inefficiency. I think Valve is an (in)famous example of this in the tech space.
[1] - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0335...
This does not mean that big tech companies are not capitalist in the sense that ordinary people use the word "capitalist", nor indeed in the sense that economists generally use the word "capitalist" either. No critic of capitalism intends for their critique not to apply to actual businesses as they must exist (even Valve). It may be an interesting fact that firms are not organized unconsciously according to a price mechanism, but it is not a surprising one nor of any particular salience here.
This "ordinary" definition of capitalism is vacuous because it views all mixed economies as "capitalist" economies. It's a fallacious definition that marginalizes economic "socialism" as an impossible bogeyman (i.e. zero private property). TINA and all that.
Deja vu? This seems like the story of the C++ Committee all over again, isn't it? Maybe this is the price you pay for adoption and popularity..
I get what you mean, but there is a key difference and I think that difference is driving a good portion of then for/against comments in this thread and elsewhere. The entirety of the Rust Principles, etc, seems to stem from the belief, supported by Niko in the Principles blog post and others by wording, that Rust is not just a programming language, but is a ‘community’. I can find no analogue in the C++ Committee, or user base generally. C++ is a programming language that individuals and groups use to make software, full stop. This difference leads to arguments/stances/positions that have very little to do with the material definition of the technological tool and more to do with some loosely defined feelings of ‘community’. The C++ Committee story was primarily about Google and other large corporate interests advocating a large techno local change in the language to benefit their use case with no input or consideration for other users of the tool, but this seems to be primarily focused on feelings of non-community control and business structuring. Maybe I’m wrong and Amazon is having an influence on Rust, the programming language, that disregards fit for purpose for non-Amazon developers, but I’d need to see something to support that before your comparison is a better fit.
When ISO C++98 came out there was no Google, or better said, it was just been founded.
You are correct. I may have read more into GP’s post than they intended. I assumed given the issues present in the tread and the original tweets, I assumed they were referring to the Committee submission document from 2020 [1] and the ‘uproar’ from non-FAANG developers.
1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
Well, given that Google has reduced their contributions to ISO C++ and clang/LLVM, it appears the ISO is working as intended, where everyone has one vote, despite wanting more.
Ultimately the votes at ISO are on behalf of sovereign entities, and so you should be glad that it rarely comes to that, since I don't think you necessarily agree that Ireland and Kenya each ought to have the same weight as the United States of America when it comes to C++.
I would suggest the "reduced contributions" means that - unsurprisingly - Google thinks Chandler, Titus and co. were right and so since the C++ Committee doesn't endorse the performance goals that means C++ will gradually become less suitable for them and they should expect to begin migrating off it in the foreseeable future.
In Prague in 2020 the committee also signalled that it recognised the concerns about Undefined Behaviour from much of the C++ programmer community, but as with Epochs, the enthusiasm for actually doing anything is extremely limited, the committee promises that it doesn't want to actively make things worse if possible, which is as Antonin Scalia would say "Weak sauce".
So, I think the direction of C++ for the next decade is, maintain old C++ code, ensure opportunities for people writing books and selling consultancy, don't worry too much about making it any faster, nor any safer. Plenty of people will be happy with that. Lots more will not.
One of the things to watch from Google will be whether it deprioritizes LLVM or mostly Clang. Lots of other interesting projects care about LLVM and traditionally benefited from work done to make Clang better, but if Clang ceases to be the priority the LLVM work still needs to be done.
I would suggest the "reduced contributions" means that - unsurprisingly - Google thinks Chandler, Titus and co. were right and so since the C++ Committee doesn't endorse the performance goals that means C++ will gradually become less suitable for them and they should expect to begin migrating off it in the foreseeable future.
In Prague in 2020 the committee also signalled that it recognised the concerns about Undefined Behaviour from much of the C++ programmer community, but as with Epochs, the enthusiasm for actually doing anything is extremely limited, the committee promises that it doesn't want to actively make things worse if possible, which is as Antonin Scalia would say "Weak sauce".
So, I think the direction of C++ for the next decade is, maintain old C++ code, ensure opportunities for people writing books and selling consultancy, don't worry too much about making it any faster, nor any safer. Plenty of people will be happy with that. Lots more will not.
One of the things to watch from Google will be whether it deprioritizes LLVM or mostly Clang. Lots of other interesting projects care about LLVM and traditionally benefited from work done to make Clang better, but if Clang ceases to be the priority the LLVM work still needs to be done.
The C++ Committee story was primarily about Google and other large corporate interests advocating a large techno local change in the language to benefit their use case with no input or consideration for other users of the tool
Any links for background on this debate?
Any links for background on this debate?
As I posted in the sibling comment, the Goals submission is at [1]. The Reddit and HN threads are pretty easy to search for (and there were quite a few). Summary, as I remember it, a group of primarily FAANG, with a large Google presence, authored a submission for the C++ Committee which was effectively a flag in the sand saying they (and their very deep pockets) wanted C++ to be primarily gear toward large, modern style development at large company scale. Removal of backwards comparability, limiting standard to only 64 bit architecture, preference for unstable ABI and language standard, etc. The document acknowledges that the use case they want the committee to push C++ towards is not for everyone, primarily because they all represent large money/scale interests, but they want the committee to go there way anyway.
1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
Thanks. I remember that proposal and thinking it was pretty wild.
Had to chime in on the first of the named "principles" of the language, because it makes a good example of what I think is wrong with the Rust community:
> “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet.
The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs.
Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.
> “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet.
The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs.
Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.
It's not just about UB, it's about the design encouraging good code and defensive programming. That includes enums, non nullability, immutability by default, etc.
Still seems poorly captured by "if it compiles, it works", no? The point was this was marketing, not a statement of principle. Rust needs to do more of the latter and less of the former. The time for marketing was years back.
It's always hilarious how near totally amnesiac this whole industry is. People are constantly "inventing" shit that already existed many many decades ago, including all the bugs and warts, oblivious of the fixes and improvements from the decades in between.
AFAICS much -- if not most? -- of the stuff Rust is being lavishly praised for now already existed in Nikolaus Wirth's original Pascal from the early 1970s.
AFAICS much -- if not most? -- of the stuff Rust is being lavishly praised for now already existed in Nikolaus Wirth's original Pascal from the early 1970s.
I think Steve has a well earned reputation for being decent and trustworthy.
I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as tacit approval.
I interpret the article as a giving Amazon credit for why people like Rust, and Steve's response as a public disagreement saying that such credit is unwarranted and gives Amazon more power than it should have over Rust's future direction.
I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as tacit approval.
I interpret the article as a giving Amazon credit for why people like Rust, and Steve's response as a public disagreement saying that such credit is unwarranted and gives Amazon more power than it should have over Rust's future direction.
I think this is simply Rust having to deal with switching from "minimize conflict" to "manage conflict".
Corporate entities don't really care about "inclusiveness" or "minimizing conflict".
So, Rust governance will either grow the structures and leadership to "manage conflict" or get steamrolled.
Corporate entities don't really care about "inclusiveness" or "minimizing conflict".
So, Rust governance will either grow the structures and leadership to "manage conflict" or get steamrolled.
Not sure if that will go well since it is people at Amazon that will insert themselves here and you get corporate governance.
Not really sure I am convinced on the result of languages and frameworks managed by big tech, although I believe Amazon to perhaps be the better players among them.
Not really sure I am convinced on the result of languages and frameworks managed by big tech, although I believe Amazon to perhaps be the better players among them.
I think it's even simpler than that: Rust was a Mozilla project from inception, and suddenly in 2020 it wasn't because Mozilla made all their Rust engineers redundant.
The Rust Foundation lost its main sponsor, because Mozilla pulled out... that's a spectacular betrayal. Amazon comes in with a better offer to support the language. Why say no?
Klabnik doesn't like it, but the simple and sad truth is that Mozilla abandoned Rust.
edit: this post was pure speculation and I was corrected by Steve Klabnik in a reply :)
The Rust Foundation lost its main sponsor, because Mozilla pulled out... that's a spectacular betrayal. Amazon comes in with a better offer to support the language. Why say no?
Klabnik doesn't like it, but the simple and sad truth is that Mozilla abandoned Rust.
edit: this post was pure speculation and I was corrected by Steve Klabnik in a reply :)
The foundation was created after Mozilla let the team go. Mozilla also joined the foundation.
So I was bullshitting :) I've updated the post with a clarification.
> but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships.
In another comment, Steve said he was not a member of the Rust Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771
In another comment, Steve said he was not a member of the Rust Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771
Your interpretation of "a group you are a member of" as referring to formal membership in the Rust Foundation specifically, rather than membership in the Rust community generally* seems like it gets at one of the issues in dispute, namely, whether there is an effort by corporate participants in the RF to (re)define what Rust is.
(*): "community membership" is necessarily somewhat nebulous, but Steve is, undeniably, a member of the Rust community.
(*): "community membership" is necessarily somewhat nebulous, but Steve is, undeniably, a member of the Rust community.
Reminds me of the recurring debates we had (and have!) in KDE about the right way to structure decision making from the development community and the KDE e.V.
> Your interpretation of "a group you are a member of" as referring to formal membership in the Rust Foundation specifically, rather than membership in the Rust community generally
The linked Tweet thread is specifically directed at the Rust Foundation, not the general Rust community.
Steve Klabnik is obviously a member of the Rust community.
The linked Tweet thread is specifically directed at the Rust Foundation, not the general Rust community.
Steve Klabnik is obviously a member of the Rust community.
[deleted]
Is individual membership even an option?
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/info/become-a-member/
doesn't seem to contemplate it.
It is not currently an option, as far as I know. That said as a member of project leadership I would be eligible to run for various positions and be one, but I did not.
Well that's interesting. It looks like the Linux Foundation all over again and its very surprising to see how one could not for-see that such issues like this would happen.
After reading the comments, I think that this one [0] even directly shared the same structure concerns [1] you are bringing up and not giving companies like Amazon too much control.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591
After reading the comments, I think that this one [0] even directly shared the same structure concerns [1] you are bringing up and not giving companies like Amazon too much control.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591
How is this a Linux Foundation issue? The LF usually has board seats reserved for folks who are maintainers, committers and so on, essentially represents all the interests in the community.
Don't put this on the LF, this is definitely on the folks who bootstrapped the foundation and setup the governance in the way they did.
Don't put this on the LF, this is definitely on the folks who bootstrapped the foundation and setup the governance in the way they did.
He didn't say it WAS a Linux Foundation issue, he said it was LIKE the Linux Foundation. I'm assuming there was some Linux Foundation drama in the past he is specifically referencing that this mirrors. I'm not familiar enough with either group to narrow things down further.
The by-laws do make a mention of it:
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/bylaws/#section-2....
>The Foundation shall have five classes of membership: Platinum Members, Gold Members, Silver Members, Associate Members, and Individual Members.
At the same time though, there doesn't seem to be a general way for becoming one now:
>The Individual Members of the Foundation shall initially be the members of the Core Team, as defined in Section 5.5(b) below, and may be extended to other individual maintainers of the Projects and subject to any other qualifications as may from time to time be established by the Board.
https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/bylaws/#section-2....
>The Foundation shall have five classes of membership: Platinum Members, Gold Members, Silver Members, Associate Members, and Individual Members.
At the same time though, there doesn't seem to be a general way for becoming one now:
>The Individual Members of the Foundation shall initially be the members of the Core Team, as defined in Section 5.5(b) below, and may be extended to other individual maintainers of the Projects and subject to any other qualifications as may from time to time be established by the Board.
One confusing thing highlighted in the thread: the article says Niko Matsakis is "co-lead of the Rust programming language project".
Niko is a long-term participant in Rust, and former core-team member (https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core), who's made huge contributions. However, it's not clear to me what that co-lead reference means. The closest that comes up is that he's a co-lead of the rust language team, which is distinct from the core team. Quite possible I'm missing something, would love to see someone make it more clear.
Source: https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523. I personally am not saying the article is misleading, just that I am confused.
Niko is a long-term participant in Rust, and former core-team member (https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core), who's made huge contributions. However, it's not clear to me what that co-lead reference means. The closest that comes up is that he's a co-lead of the rust language team, which is distinct from the core team. Quite possible I'm missing something, would love to see someone make it more clear.
Source: https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523. I personally am not saying the article is misleading, just that I am confused.
"co-lead of the Rust programming language project" is a categorical error. There is no such position. The article has a mistake. Niko is co-lead of the language team.
I guess there is that position, "at Amazon", and writing that was a bit of a tell about how they see ownership already.
Or, ya know, a mistake.
He doesn’t even mention anything maligned with Amazon taking part in Rust.
Plenty of successful languages have been developed by large companies.
Plenty of successful languages have been developed by large companies.
I think you can trust the intentions of individual Amazon coders, but it’s best to assume that the priorities of the management are malicious.
I think seanmonstar also works at Amazon, his projects are exceptional and I've been following him from his MooTools days.
Many of his peers went to work on React. Others like davidwalsh worked at Mozilla.
Many of his peers went to work on React. Others like davidwalsh worked at Mozilla.
Oh boy I can't wait for Rust to become difficult to use anywhere other than AWS Lambdas.
[deleted]
Even if the Amazon battle is won it's nothing more than a drain against the seemingly futile war against iron oxide.
Large organizations are full processes for balancing power between internal groups. As Rust Foundation, Amazon, and other companies become more involved, friction will happen more frequently. The Rust Foundation will need processes for balancing power between the companies and various groups inside the companies.
PR pieces are usually full of deception. I expect that Rust Foundation will end up with a process for approving Rust-related PR from supporting organizations. They will pay someone to do that work.
So far, Rust has been run by people who behave reasonably. I'm confident that they will resolve this issue. They will resolve it with open discussion, expressing and acknowledging different opinions and needs, explaining tradeoffs, and progressing steadily to consensus.
Here's a great talk by previous Rust head Ashley Williams about Rust's decision-making process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s
Some articles about it:
- http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#th...
- http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-...
- https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/
PR pieces are usually full of deception. I expect that Rust Foundation will end up with a process for approving Rust-related PR from supporting organizations. They will pay someone to do that work.
So far, Rust has been run by people who behave reasonably. I'm confident that they will resolve this issue. They will resolve it with open discussion, expressing and acknowledging different opinions and needs, explaining tradeoffs, and progressing steadily to consensus.
Here's a great talk by previous Rust head Ashley Williams about Rust's decision-making process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s
Some articles about it:
- http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#th...
- http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-...
- https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/
After reading Rust principles I'm confused why author is against entire idea of principles and equates them to Amazon principles.
I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?
Holding (what is perceived to be) too much control over core roles of the project.
That's all? What should we be outraged about specifically?
If you can't figure out what to be outraged about, maybe don't be outraged?
I'm not outraged at all. Where did you get this from? I was asking for details because everything has been very vague.
There are no more details to be had -- nor needed. It's very simple: If you find the mere fact that one organisation is amassing an apparently undue amount of influence something to be worried about, then be; if you don't, then don't.
The fact that you're obviously trying to paint a legitimate worry as overwrought histrionics by spelling "worried" as "outraged" would seem to indicate you're already leaning towards the latter -- perhaps sufficiently so to be intentionally trying to ridicule the original worry.
The fact that you're obviously trying to paint a legitimate worry as overwrought histrionics by spelling "worried" as "outraged" would seem to indicate you're already leaning towards the latter -- perhaps sufficiently so to be intentionally trying to ridicule the original worry.
Here's a response to tbe same from Mara Bos:
>What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon.
https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19
>What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon.
https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19
For context, Mara is the Rust library team leader. The Rust library team maintains the Rust standard library.
https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/library
https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/library
This has reached vague-booking level of OS drama:
>Oh and one thing I should say too: suggesting that core doesn’t do anything during the same year we managed the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of the foundation is incredibly disrespectful to those on core who did all of that intense work.
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241
>Oh and one thing I should say too: suggesting that core doesn’t do anything during the same year we managed the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of the foundation is incredibly disrespectful to those on core who did all of that intense work.
https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241
Is this supposed to be a reference to Mara's post? They never said that the core team is not "doing anything", only that they're less involved in steering the Rust project as a whole. Managing the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of a new foundation may be very worthwhile and perhaps intense work, but it has remarkably little to do with Mara's narrower point about project direction.
This is about the time I confirmed it was FOSS drama. Disrespectin’ muh contributions is a tune we’ve heard.
[deleted]
This is a naive take, I admit, but...how does Amazon co-opt the Rust Foundation without the Rust Foundation allowing Amazon to co-opt it?
Is Amazon hiring existing members of the Rust Foundation such that they weren't involved with Amazon but now are? e.g. paying these people to work on Rust but under Amazon's terms?
Isn't it then up to the Rust Foundation to declare this a conflict of interest, perhaps, and to sever ties with that member?
That said, Mozilla really did drop the ball by laying off all their staff on the Rust project and effectively defunding it. They might have well have created a power vacuum and Amazon beat Microsoft to the punch.
Is Amazon hiring existing members of the Rust Foundation such that they weren't involved with Amazon but now are? e.g. paying these people to work on Rust but under Amazon's terms?
Isn't it then up to the Rust Foundation to declare this a conflict of interest, perhaps, and to sever ties with that member?
That said, Mozilla really did drop the ball by laying off all their staff on the Rust project and effectively defunding it. They might have well have created a power vacuum and Amazon beat Microsoft to the punch.
There's too much money in Rust, and many power brokers at play here from Google, Amazon, MS, et al. People are incentivized by money and career growth to lead Rust's future. I think core members should be the one leading the foundation, but there are a few reasons this hasn't happened:
1. Core members are burnt out.
2. This is not their primary skill set (administration vs engineering/community building).
Other languages have been blessed with an administrative group (GvR/Python[0], Hickey/Clojure), corporate sponsor (Pike/Go), or committee (C++, Java). The counterpart for Rust is core member/Mozilla, but there is no appetite for this responsibility.
0: I like this talk about governance models at Pycon 2019, after GvR stepped down as BFDL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8
1. Core members are burnt out.
2. This is not their primary skill set (administration vs engineering/community building).
Other languages have been blessed with an administrative group (GvR/Python[0], Hickey/Clojure), corporate sponsor (Pike/Go), or committee (C++, Java). The counterpart for Rust is core member/Mozilla, but there is no appetite for this responsibility.
0: I like this talk about governance models at Pycon 2019, after GvR stepped down as BFDL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8
[deleted]
The issue is probably touchy. It may not be possible to share "objective" facts with the public. This unfortunately makes it harder to differentiate it from FUD or another instance of open source drama.
The thread starts with a (vague) statement against Amazon trying to expand its control on the Rust project.
It later ends up being a spat between rust team members (who aren't a part of Amazon) on the role of the Core team.
I feel Steve does not have enough support among the members of the rust teams for whatever he was going for with this. The derailing of the discussion also makes it seem as if there are other issues at play.
Sadly, this may end up amounting to nothing more than burnt bridges.
The thread starts with a (vague) statement against Amazon trying to expand its control on the Rust project.
It later ends up being a spat between rust team members (who aren't a part of Amazon) on the role of the Core team.
I feel Steve does not have enough support among the members of the rust teams for whatever he was going for with this. The derailing of the discussion also makes it seem as if there are other issues at play.
Sadly, this may end up amounting to nothing more than burnt bridges.
Yeah given the general responses from other people involved with the project, Steve seems pretty far out on a limb here.
IDK I think this is overblown. Amazon employs two core members of Rust leadership. Both of whom worked hard on making Rust amazing like few others did. Both of whom who joined Mozilla to work on amazing projects for wages below what different places in the industry would pay. Do such people really betray their project of passion for money? Note that joining Amazon alone is no such act. It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language.
Also note that leaders of teams don't have many special rights. They are more primus inter pares than bosses. This doesn't mean that people don't listen to them, but it's more informal and due to respect of the individual from what I can see. Respect that they'd lose if they supported some crazy Amazon idea that is harmful for the language.
As for core team vs foundation issues. I share concerns voiced in the community that the foundation is intransparent. But ultimately, the core team as well as the foundation don't do day to day operation of the language.
Maybe Steve sees something that I don't, and he's certainly in a better position to see things, but I don't see much of a threat, at least not right now.
Also note that leaders of teams don't have many special rights. They are more primus inter pares than bosses. This doesn't mean that people don't listen to them, but it's more informal and due to respect of the individual from what I can see. Respect that they'd lose if they supported some crazy Amazon idea that is harmful for the language.
As for core team vs foundation issues. I share concerns voiced in the community that the foundation is intransparent. But ultimately, the core team as well as the foundation don't do day to day operation of the language.
Maybe Steve sees something that I don't, and he's certainly in a better position to see things, but I don't see much of a threat, at least not right now.
> It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language.
To clarify, is that happening, or is that a warning that vigilance is needed to ensure it doesn't happen?
To clarify, is that happening, or is that a warning that vigilance is needed to ensure it doesn't happen?
I meant it in the sense that it's not happening. But that if it happened, I'd be more worried. I think it would also fail.
The mere act of taking money, and Amazon presumably pays them a lot, is not immoral.
It only starts to be a problem if larger percentages of the teams work at Amazon, and people would be put onto teams just for being employed at Amazon. Linus Torvalds has made it clear that he doesn't make people maintainers for some component just for being employed somewhere. Instead of being bound to a company, maintainership is bound to the person. I think this is a good policy and one that Rust should keep.
The mere act of taking money, and Amazon presumably pays them a lot, is not immoral.
It only starts to be a problem if larger percentages of the teams work at Amazon, and people would be put onto teams just for being employed at Amazon. Linus Torvalds has made it clear that he doesn't make people maintainers for some component just for being employed somewhere. Instead of being bound to a company, maintainership is bound to the person. I think this is a good policy and one that Rust should keep.
I don't think there has been any evidence of this. But I've seen some complaints that development of Rust is becoming somewhat less transparent and less deliberation-driven; it can be somewhat harder for community members outside of the teams proper to provide appropriate input. This is only a very slight concern so far, but it makes the risk of 'lobbying' behavior a bit higher.
> I've seen some complaints
Can you elaborate? IME Rust development is as transparent as ever.
Can you elaborate? IME Rust development is as transparent as ever.
I'd rather not put words in anyone's mouth, sorry! It's not like it even matters all that much, it's something that individual project teams could easily fix by improving and standardizing on how to more consistently seek outside community input on new developments (leveraging, e.g. the public 'internals' forum, and/or the RFC github repo). This was not needed before since the core team was picking up a lot of that slack. But obviously we've been seeing some changes wrt. that.
The individual sub-teams have been using RFCs as the way to push through major changes for years and years and years. Pretty much since the sub-teams were born, around when Rust 1.0 was released in 2015. Nothing has changed there. I know because I was there in the beginning and I'm still here.
What has changed since the beginning is that there are more working groups these days. For example, there are working groups specializing in SIMD and error handling, among many others (they just happen to be the ones I follow in particular). The working groups generally work toward writing an RFC for the broader community to give feedback on. But working groups themselves are open to anyone, and they aren't difficult to join. (And you don't even need to "join" to participate. You just have to show up and start giving feedback.) The key point here is that the RFC process is still used, same as it always has been.
To be clear, working groups and the Rust teams choose their own membership. Neither Amazon nor the Rust Foundation have any say.
What has changed since the beginning is that there are more working groups these days. For example, there are working groups specializing in SIMD and error handling, among many others (they just happen to be the ones I follow in particular). The working groups generally work toward writing an RFC for the broader community to give feedback on. But working groups themselves are open to anyone, and they aren't difficult to join. (And you don't even need to "join" to participate. You just have to show up and start giving feedback.) The key point here is that the RFC process is still used, same as it always has been.
To be clear, working groups and the Rust teams choose their own membership. Neither Amazon nor the Rust Foundation have any say.
Its like back when XML was a thing, and people were freaked out about Microsoft's outsize influence on the XML standards committee. MS tried very hard to put in features into XML that would align nicely with their proprietary tools. IBM and others fought to keep XML agnostic. Satisfying that XML doesn't occupy an important place... given how Microsoft tried to take advantage.
Sometimes vendors will influence, if not in intent, in 'naturally' justifying 'intuitive' features - intuitive in the sense it might line up nicely with their future roadmaps?
Amazon has got some negative publicity with exploiting Open Source projects and using it in AWS. Recall how Oracle has 'guided' Java. Not saying that Amazon will come with its own agenda. In general Amazon has played nice with OSS.
Sometimes vendors will influence, if not in intent, in 'naturally' justifying 'intuitive' features - intuitive in the sense it might line up nicely with their future roadmaps?
Amazon has got some negative publicity with exploiting Open Source projects and using it in AWS. Recall how Oracle has 'guided' Java. Not saying that Amazon will come with its own agenda. In general Amazon has played nice with OSS.
The InfoWorld article [1] (linked from the first tweet of the thread) has now been updated:
> Editor’s note: A previous version of the article correctly stated that the Rustacean Principles were modeled after Amazonian tenets, but unintentionally may have implied that Amazon was somehow responsible for Rust development. Amazon employs several Rust maintainers and contributors, but it is just one of many companies with employees involved.
[1]: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
> Editor’s note: A previous version of the article correctly stated that the Rustacean Principles were modeled after Amazonian tenets, but unintentionally may have implied that Amazon was somehow responsible for Rust development. Amazon employs several Rust maintainers and contributors, but it is just one of many companies with employees involved.
[1]: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
Well, if only Rust had a solid custodian, defender of open source... Oh wait, Mozilla basically ditched the project, and Servo, and Firefox OS... blame Mozilla.
The concern "A single organization shouldn't have too much power" did apply to Mozilla just as well.
I'll take Eich's era Mozilla over Amazon as a custodian of anything Open Source.
The fact that you feel the need to specify an era is a pretty good sign the general concern does indeed apply.
Fwiw, as far as I'm aware, the principles and priorities outlined in the referenced article [1] were core Rust principles from the early days while it was still a project at Mozilla, rather than anything Amazon has defined recently.
They may have become more formalized over time, into a sort "Six laws of Rustbotics" sort of thing. Eg.:
- First Law: “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
- Second Law: “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently, except where doing so conflicts with the First Law.”
etc.
The crux of it all is prioritizing reliability and deterministic elimination of undefined behaviors above all other priorities. Only a handful of languages have done that in the past (Ada, Haskell, etc), but none reached mainstream acceptance in the way that Rust has. That is something new.
I'm not aware of that particular value being closely associated with Amazon, moreso than Google or any other US Big Tech company.
If not for Steve's concerns here, I would have guessed the opposite, that Rust is defining Amazon's engineering culture and principles, than the other way around.
But it also sounds like Steve is being the canary in the coalmine here, and calling out something that may not be a huge problem right now, but could become so in the foreseeable future, and implicitly calling for governance reform similar to other communities [2] to prevent it. An ounce of prevention now is worth a pound of cure later.
[1]:https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
[2]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002
They may have become more formalized over time, into a sort "Six laws of Rustbotics" sort of thing. Eg.:
- First Law: “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”
- Second Law: “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently, except where doing so conflicts with the First Law.”
etc.
The crux of it all is prioritizing reliability and deterministic elimination of undefined behaviors above all other priorities. Only a handful of languages have done that in the past (Ada, Haskell, etc), but none reached mainstream acceptance in the way that Rust has. That is something new.
I'm not aware of that particular value being closely associated with Amazon, moreso than Google or any other US Big Tech company.
If not for Steve's concerns here, I would have guessed the opposite, that Rust is defining Amazon's engineering culture and principles, than the other way around.
But it also sounds like Steve is being the canary in the coalmine here, and calling out something that may not be a huge problem right now, but could become so in the foreseeable future, and implicitly calling for governance reform similar to other communities [2] to prevent it. An ounce of prevention now is worth a pound of cure later.
[1]:https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
[2]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002
What is the worst case scenario that the author imagines happening to Rust due to Amazon’s influence (or anyone’s influence)?
This is unfamiliar to me - are there notable stories of what poor steering has done to a programming language? What were the consequences?
I can parse the basic grievances here on power dynamics, losing control of something you helped build…that’s familiar enough…but I’m having trouble understanding the gravity of what the author is passionate about preventing.
(In case it isn’t obvious I’ve never been a long term contributor to an open source project - genuinely curious about the context here)
This is unfamiliar to me - are there notable stories of what poor steering has done to a programming language? What were the consequences?
I can parse the basic grievances here on power dynamics, losing control of something you helped build…that’s familiar enough…but I’m having trouble understanding the gravity of what the author is passionate about preventing.
(In case it isn’t obvious I’ve never been a long term contributor to an open source project - genuinely curious about the context here)
Summary:
- The Board of the Rust Foundation intentionally let the contract for the current acting Executive Director (ED) of the Rust Foundation lapse.
- It was intentional because it would have been easy to extend the contract but it was chosen not to.
- The lack of ED gives Amazon a great deal of control as the Chair of the Rust Foundation.
- There may be some underhanded or subjectively dirty things being done by Amazon administratively or PR-wise regarding Rust.
- Because of the power imbalance created by the lack of ED, those actions are a cause for concern.
- Regardless of how/why/who caused this, regardless of intent for administration, this situation should be fixed.
Solution: The Board of the Rust Foundation needs to pick the damn ED and establish limits on membership affiliation like other projects.
- The Board of the Rust Foundation intentionally let the contract for the current acting Executive Director (ED) of the Rust Foundation lapse.
- It was intentional because it would have been easy to extend the contract but it was chosen not to.
- The lack of ED gives Amazon a great deal of control as the Chair of the Rust Foundation.
- There may be some underhanded or subjectively dirty things being done by Amazon administratively or PR-wise regarding Rust.
- Because of the power imbalance created by the lack of ED, those actions are a cause for concern.
- Regardless of how/why/who caused this, regardless of intent for administration, this situation should be fixed.
Solution: The Board of the Rust Foundation needs to pick the damn ED and establish limits on membership affiliation like other projects.
One thing I haven't seen highlighted is the difference in attitude/action between Amazon as a corporate sponsor and other corporate sponsors. Rust has other corporate sponsors (Microsoft is on there essentially twice w/ the GitHub acquisition) -- has any such attempt been made by other sponsors?
That aside I'm convinced this is the fate of all board/complicated governance structure popular open source project. If you make the governance structure that mirrors corporate constructions, people who work at big corporations and know how the politics work are going to find themselves right at home.
I don't know what the solution is, you can't expect every project to have a BDFL and there is a lot of work to be done on a huge open source project, but I always see the adoption of a corporation-like governance structure without explicit limitation on the power/influence of involved groups/corporations as a red flag.
Steve mentions it himself but the idea that Mozilla is anything like Amazon is a farce. I'd trust Mozilla to build me a browser (they do), a phone (they did), a physical computer and whatever else because of how they're structured, what they profess, and their track record. I'd trust Amazon to do none of those things (mostly because I thankfully have other options right now). Mozilla supported this project from it's inception and has made it what it is (along the way reducing it's own influence to make sure there was no misconception). Amazon has no such track record that I know of, and it's corporate structure does not suggest any alternative driving force outside of maximizing profit.
The contributors who happen to work at Amazon who were able to contribute to Rust under Amazon's largesse (whether direct or indirect) deserve the status they have achieved within Rust, but there is a conflict of interest. If that conflict of interest grows, then it has to be addressed.
That aside I'm convinced this is the fate of all board/complicated governance structure popular open source project. If you make the governance structure that mirrors corporate constructions, people who work at big corporations and know how the politics work are going to find themselves right at home.
I don't know what the solution is, you can't expect every project to have a BDFL and there is a lot of work to be done on a huge open source project, but I always see the adoption of a corporation-like governance structure without explicit limitation on the power/influence of involved groups/corporations as a red flag.
Steve mentions it himself but the idea that Mozilla is anything like Amazon is a farce. I'd trust Mozilla to build me a browser (they do), a phone (they did), a physical computer and whatever else because of how they're structured, what they profess, and their track record. I'd trust Amazon to do none of those things (mostly because I thankfully have other options right now). Mozilla supported this project from it's inception and has made it what it is (along the way reducing it's own influence to make sure there was no misconception). Amazon has no such track record that I know of, and it's corporate structure does not suggest any alternative driving force outside of maximizing profit.
The contributors who happen to work at Amazon who were able to contribute to Rust under Amazon's largesse (whether direct or indirect) deserve the status they have achieved within Rust, but there is a conflict of interest. If that conflict of interest grows, then it has to be addressed.
There was an interesting quote under one of the replies:
> The power of rust is that it's for the people... not for massive orgs to wield in order to make more money
Given that most rust code is licensed under non-copyleft licenses (MIT, etc.) I wonder where this impression came from? I have always had the impression that rust was exactly that - just another tool for massive orgs to make more money.
In contrast, a language ecosystem more like elisp, where most code is GPLed seems more "for the people".
> The power of rust is that it's for the people... not for massive orgs to wield in order to make more money
Given that most rust code is licensed under non-copyleft licenses (MIT, etc.) I wonder where this impression came from? I have always had the impression that rust was exactly that - just another tool for massive orgs to make more money.
In contrast, a language ecosystem more like elisp, where most code is GPLed seems more "for the people".
I think Steve is being too vague for me to understand well. Let me see if I can break it down.
Steve is suggesting Amazon is becoming a problem to the future of Rust. He is suggesting that Amazon is coming to control Rust. The evidence he is giving to this end is:
1. An Amazon employee creating Rust principles that shape the community
2. An Amazon employee being effectively in control of the Rust Foundation because there's no Executive Director atm
3. Amazon employees taking up many positions in leadership
4. Some supposed "dirty shit" going on by Amazon behind the scenes
5. The core team losing their recognition and status?
#1 would be a problem if they didn't consult the rest of leadership first or if the principles are pushing forward Amazon's own personal agenda but Steve isn't making those claims as far as I know.
#2 is a problem atm but I assume a temporary one. Steve isn't making the claim that they are not appointing an ED in order to gain power but this is a problem that remains nonetheless. Amazon should not be in control of the Rust Foundation.
#3 Amazon employees should not be able to control the Rust Foundation, if this is what is happening.
#4 Steve claims something dirty is happening behind the scenes by Amazon. Unfortunately, we don't have details on what supposedly dirty things are happening. Of course if Amazon is pushing their interests on the rest of the Rust team, that would be a problem.
#5 Steve refers to the core team being undermined but I don't understand what he means by that. Is no one listening to the core team anymore? Are they not being included in important leadership decisions? Is the core team not functioning as it was originally designed? What is the problem here specifically?
It does seem like Amazon is gaining a lot of control over Rust and that should probably be adjusted. Firstly, by appointing an executive director. I don't see any evidence of malice or agenda pushing by Amazon though. I cannot agree with Steve here without evidence. The core team should be working as intended too. It seems like Rust leadership needs to come together to discuss these issues and try to resolve them. I'm not sure why Steve is asking the community to solve them when it's leadership that has the decision-making power here.
Steve is suggesting Amazon is becoming a problem to the future of Rust. He is suggesting that Amazon is coming to control Rust. The evidence he is giving to this end is:
1. An Amazon employee creating Rust principles that shape the community
2. An Amazon employee being effectively in control of the Rust Foundation because there's no Executive Director atm
3. Amazon employees taking up many positions in leadership
4. Some supposed "dirty shit" going on by Amazon behind the scenes
5. The core team losing their recognition and status?
#1 would be a problem if they didn't consult the rest of leadership first or if the principles are pushing forward Amazon's own personal agenda but Steve isn't making those claims as far as I know.
#2 is a problem atm but I assume a temporary one. Steve isn't making the claim that they are not appointing an ED in order to gain power but this is a problem that remains nonetheless. Amazon should not be in control of the Rust Foundation.
#3 Amazon employees should not be able to control the Rust Foundation, if this is what is happening.
#4 Steve claims something dirty is happening behind the scenes by Amazon. Unfortunately, we don't have details on what supposedly dirty things are happening. Of course if Amazon is pushing their interests on the rest of the Rust team, that would be a problem.
#5 Steve refers to the core team being undermined but I don't understand what he means by that. Is no one listening to the core team anymore? Are they not being included in important leadership decisions? Is the core team not functioning as it was originally designed? What is the problem here specifically?
It does seem like Amazon is gaining a lot of control over Rust and that should probably be adjusted. Firstly, by appointing an executive director. I don't see any evidence of malice or agenda pushing by Amazon though. I cannot agree with Steve here without evidence. The core team should be working as intended too. It seems like Rust leadership needs to come together to discuss these issues and try to resolve them. I'm not sure why Steve is asking the community to solve them when it's leadership that has the decision-making power here.
FWIW these are not "Amazon employees that infiltrated the Rust ranks to take over".
Mozilla fired everybody, and companies heavily invested in Rust like Amazon, Facebook, etc. hired them.
So over night some people have labeled the opinions and work of these people as "Amazon opinions".
Amazon has a lot of people working on improving Rust itself, and this gives them power, because they decide on what stuff the people they are paying work on, so that stuff gets done sooner, and often better, than the stuff done by volunteers on their free time.
There are other companies invested in Rust, so if they see this as a problem, they can hire more people to work on Rust too.
Steve criticizes this, but their criticism is not constructive, since they propose no solution.
As long as people that work on Rust get paid by companies, those companies control what they work on, and that's going to be something that these companies care about.
Mozilla fired everybody, and companies heavily invested in Rust like Amazon, Facebook, etc. hired them.
So over night some people have labeled the opinions and work of these people as "Amazon opinions".
Amazon has a lot of people working on improving Rust itself, and this gives them power, because they decide on what stuff the people they are paying work on, so that stuff gets done sooner, and often better, than the stuff done by volunteers on their free time.
There are other companies invested in Rust, so if they see this as a problem, they can hire more people to work on Rust too.
Steve criticizes this, but their criticism is not constructive, since they propose no solution.
As long as people that work on Rust get paid by companies, those companies control what they work on, and that's going to be something that these companies care about.
Yeah of course, these are members of the community that were already contributing a great deal and just hired by Amazon. However, if Amazon is able to control the project and makes decisions for itself instead of the entire community of developers, that's a problem. My inexperienced opinion in OSS project management is leadership should be representative of the users and not cater to a subset.
That's rarely the case.
Leadership is usually representative of merit, and merit comes from putting in the work.
Leadership is usually representative of merit, and merit comes from putting in the work.
Solana has done more for Rust adoption than either Amazon or Mozilla
We will soon have "Amazon Rust™" for only 0.01$ per minute of Rust compile time.
Amazon has done the same thing to Apache TinkerPop (and Apache in general). They got the founder kicked off the project for being a "Nazi racist."
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_spee...
Why would Amazon want the founder off the project? See the following presentation which interestingly enough, is no longer indexed by DuckDuckGo nor Google:
https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinea...
https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_spee...
Why would Amazon want the founder off the project? See the following presentation which interestingly enough, is no longer indexed by DuckDuckGo nor Google:
https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinea...
>> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects.
>> Why are we regressing here?
Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS.
Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue to grow and improve.
It is a delicate balance to accept help and resources, but not let Amazon take too much control.
What should be done?