Then don't include it in the release announcement, do it in a separate one. Problem fixed. If one part of a big PR is debatable while the rest parts can be closed easily, this is an indicator showing that a separate PR is needed.
1 Like
That's not great for the same reason individual ballots in elections are best private
In my opinion if you want to put a statement out there, you need to be able to stand behind it with your name. I understand not everyone will agree on this point.
2 Likes
There is a distinction between having a name behind a statement and having each name behind the each person's thoughts, which may fade or re-evaluate before release.
Just to note, because my earlier remark was more abrupt and could probably use more clarity:
The Rust Foundation is intended to offer sociotechnical support for the Rust project. If there is a power imbalance, if one can speak for the other, then the design flows the other way: It is intended to serve us, not the other way around.
@jhpratt The git log says tmandry authored it and MarkSimulacrum committed it. Apparently people do stand behind it with their names.
4 Likes
I would argue that not everyone will trace back to git logs. I think @jhpratt means names shown right at the end of the non-technical statement.
1 Like
Authoring non-technical statements with names is also one of the reasons why I think such a statement deserves a dedicated PR and a dedicated announcement. You simply cannot afford to over-represent any ones or groups in such statement.
There was a dedicated PR:
1 Like
In my opinion if you want to put a statement out there, you need to be able to stand behind it with your name. I understand not everyone will agree on this point.
As usual, all publicly visible changes are worked on in the open, although conversations might happen in private 1:1 or among the relevant people. If people want to see what will happen, they can go and do so in this and other aspects of the Project, either on GitHub or Zulip.
A conflation that seems to be happening here is who is represented by communications in this blog. It is not the Rust Foundation, that organization has a supporting role on the Project, but does not directly influence the way the Rust Project operates. It is not the Rust community, but aimed at communicating with or informing at the Rust community. The blog represents the position of the Rust Project, and by extension its members.
I would argue that not everyone will trace back to git logs.
There's a difference between anonymous positions and putting the names of the people involved front and center. You can assume that the communications represent the stated position of the Rust Project's governance. It is similar to how The Economist doesn't have bylines in their articles but the list of journalists at the organization is easily accessible: every article represents the position of the organization and is the result of multiple people working in cooperation.
There was a dedicated PR:
That was for This week in Rust.
6 Likes
Many, enough, Rust projects are not corporate in nature. For personal projects and those projects with few or even one main OSS contributors, I don't see any problems of these expressing their personality in them. Equating code with work, and work with a lack of individuality is a polititcal statement in itself, one I can not agree with. Also, part of Rust's messages are empowerment and community. As those are goals, and doing things in pursuit of goals is professional, I do not find this particular announcement to be misplaced.
Vim calls for donations to Uganda, in many communication, everywhere. I've never experienced that as a negative. A one-time blog post is not a large part of my attention in comparison. The announcement isn't a strictly technical communication eitherâit's intended target audience is the community. The technical side are the Release Notes.
Nevertheless: I agree with most concerns in regards to the decision structure specifically. It should always be the right thing to question how those with power wield it. However, discussion can proceed in parallel, without special priority, and no impact on similar decisions that may occur while it is discussed. Inaction is just one additional option of how to act, and enforcing this option on the Rust team is not an inherent default state. We even have a powerful retrospective: It doesn't seem to me like Release announcement for 1.44 brought downsides to Rustâas a community, as a tool, nor its goals. I would thus argue that continuing likewise should be the default choice, until evidence counter to my perception is presented with outweighing negatives.
9 Likes
Sure. And it's not impossible the git log went weird anyways due to git rebasing. On a purely technical note, though, it would violate the "single source of truth" principle to inline all those names, wouldn't it? But maybe that's okay.
aside: I stand with cats.
I also stand in solidarity with, at the barest minimum, all the trans people in Ukraine trying to get out of the line of fire. I hope Lena is okay.
The ordering of these is not meant to imply importance. My thoughts merely use a "non-strict" evaluation strategy.
Speaking of professionalism: it's very peculiar, to me, to conflate professional with technical. I largely have not worked on Rust on a professional, contractual basis. I have some sympathy for the desire to "keep things on topic" in a sense, and it is good for us to be kind, or empathetic, but I want to be clear that I am mostly bemused by calls for "professionalism" in what is, technically, a non-professional context for me. And though perhaps a change in cash flow might allow me to purchase more patience and hopefully that would make me more pleasant to interact with, I doubt I will change my behavior greatly if that changes.
And I realize you might mean "technical" (or so your post asserts as of its most recent edit) but in that case, I think it's a very bad idea to conflate technical with professional here.
6 Likes
Well, if you have faith in "single source of truth" principle, then you will see mixing non-technical statements with technical ones is not a good idea, which leads to my (again, sorry) suggestion on separating different announcements.
aside: I stand with math.
(personally) Speaking of professionalism, defining it goes beyond professionalism in my opinion, so I took a shortcut to alias it to "technical", which is easier and not leading to distractions here in the context of Rust. I cannot help with cash flow, probably Rust Foundation will buy you some patience (just kidding).
If one part of a big PR is debatable while the rest parts can be closed easily, this is an indicator showing that a separate PR is needed.
So now we're here to tell the Rust project how to run their PR process, too?
Yeah, why not? It's a suggestion as an informal PR, not a demand. That's what PRs for, to make a suggestion of fix, even informal ones like mine.
And personally, I will not reply to such subjective accusations anymore.
I cannot help with cash flow, probably Rust Foundation will buy you some patience (just kidding).
Please refrain from inappropriate and unproductive discussions.
5 Likes
One thing I think that 1.44 blog did well, then, is preemptively answering the "who is talking" question.
The vague "The Rust Team" attribution on the 1.59 post might be increasing this confusion. The previous few release announcements (at least Redirect and the few before that which I checked) were attributed to "The Rust Release Team", but not this one.
Interestingly, the 1.44 post was attributed to "The Rust Core Team", despite those for 1.43 and 1.44.1 both being attributed to "The Rust Release Team".
Perhaps the 1.59 post should follow that attribution precedent from 1.44. It sounds like that would more accurately reflect the decision-making process used.
These combine to make an interesting result.
I want to make sure not to condemn a community just based on github thumbs an a single PR, especially when it's locked and thus people cannot add the opposite thumb. As we've seen on many threads of our own, the things that get the most reactions quickly tend to be things brigaded from elsewhere.
When the exact same distasteful message is posted twice in 5 minutes by people that show as neither contributors nor members, I'm willing to continue to assume positive intent from the vague concept of the overall community. (Obviously evidence of a larger pattern could change that.)
I don't think that extension follows, in the same way that the position of the Economist is not necessarily the position of its journalists and the position of an elected representative is not necessarily that of their electorate.
6 Likes
FYI, this was not my intent at all. I have no idea whether the post or any of the people voting in the thread have much or anything to do with the project. Probably, the situation could have been moderated better, letting the comment stand as is with the reactions as is seems problematic IMO. My point is that either way, I wouldn't want to see this kind of post and those reactions left public and uncommented in the Rust community (that means in places such as e. g. in this forum) no matter whether the message came from within the community or from outside.
Note that OP chose to link that specific PR and said âI think we should do the same in Rust official channelsâ which seems to imply they support the way that PR was handled. And perhaps even the way that PR discussion went, though that might very well be me assuming too much. In any case IMO this PR not a shining example at all to link to as a demonstration of how to âprofessionallyâ handle this topic.
3 Likes
I don't agree with the implied assumption that "professionalism" is separated from "political" stances. Where I work, our CEO took a stance on these issues too â in a professional setting. These are real problems that affect lives of people working at the company.
15 Likes
Again, I am not asking not to take stances. Personally, I sympathize everyone got involved in the war, as my grandpa was. But this does not mean people that get involved or sympathize those who get involved have the right to ask for sympathy from unrelated entities. Some of nicest people will answer and I respect them, but it is fine to not answer and not answering does not mean anything. (My grandpa does not tell anyone unrelated about his sad story and not ask for sympathy of any kind from a stranger. And he told me "do not take sympathy for granted and do not ever ask for it. It's rude to ask a stranger to feel what you feel, especially sadness")
If anyone feel related, do something, say something and make something in his/her/its own name, just like your company and CEO.
from unrelated entities
The opposite, that Rust is related, has also been asserted. It's not adding anything new to keep echoing this.
1 Like