Not hard to "get it" at all. Technically true. Practically not.
That is extreme. I would consider forking and fracturing of Rust the language and Rust the community a major catastrophe.
I certainly don't have the skill, talent or time to maintain my own Rust. Are you suggesting I should "vote with my feet" now and abandon all the time and effort I have put into learning and using Rust, just in case at some point in the future I am ostracized for some unforeseen difference of views on some issue that is not related to the technology itself?
I have every confidence that they are smarter than that.
I'm counting myself as a member of the Rust community. I'm throwing my opinion into the ring for consideration. That is all.
I think I see where the difference lies. I don't see the original quotes as speaking for me. The Rust leadership stewards, maintains and supports a community project, and they want that project to have a certain set of inclusive values. The CoC wasn't decided by the community as a whole either, because otherwise there would never be any agreement on that.
So in my mind, they're less talking on behalf of the community, but more for the project as a whole. And they certainly have the right to make value determinations in that regard, just like they have a right to decide on a CoC. So given what I wrote in an earlier comment, this to me aligns full and well with the intent of inclusiveness.
In acknowledgement that taking a stand against police brutality is more important than sharing tech knowledge, ...
The Rust core team explicitly took action to limit communication about Rust, in order to raise awareness about a cause that will not (I presume) help Rust in any way, because they feel it is an admirable cause and worth raising awareness for. That clearly says to me that they feel some things are more important than "Rust's ability to function as a project" and they are not shy about giving the important things more priority.
A hiatus that will eventually stop, on a communication channel which is strictly used for outreach, not internal communications (they're not shutting down URLO, IRLO, Internals, the rust tag on Stack Overflow, Discord, Zulip, or Email).
Which, of course, makes sense. The goal is to avoid drowning out activists. Not to stop developing the compiler.
I don't know why, but knowing them I doubt it was out of maliciousness. Like I said, this has become more of a global phenomenon in a very quick time. There are similar protests going up all around the world right now. I would also assume that there is indeed a bit of personal connection for parts of the leadership. Either directly, or through colleagues, friends or family. So it's easy for them to connect to that specific issue right now.
I can fully understand where you're coming from though. And I absolutely can't speak on behalf of the Rust leadership, but I doubt they would be opposed to raise awareness in other areas as well. They have in the past in multiple ways, and I'd be surprised if they aren't also supportive of other social/humanitarian causes, and oppose abuse and oppression in every case.
I personally don't see that as concern trolling. My main issue was about the Rust project leadership not having the ability to raise awareness and speak out. And I don't believe them not speaking about the issues you highlighted comes from a place of exclusion. I think it is a matter of knowledge and awareness. If someone were to bring this topic more into the foreground in the community, I doubt they'd be generally opposed to that, and I am indeed hopeful that they would be supportive.
If I may give a small example that doesn't require me giving details about personal interactions with members of the Rust leadership: It might seem silly, but one of the signals I see for this is the whole discussion about Unicode identifiers. For some (if not many) in the leadership and the development teams, a lot of code being written by people who are unfamiliar with general English will make life harder. There will be Rust code out there that they will have big trouble understanding, if they have any chance at all. But they're still pressing forward with it because it enables more people to use it and take advantage of it. It might be a silly example, but I felt that was one of the areas where their intentions were visible to me.
No need to apologize in my opinion. It's a hard topic, but a necessary one. It's a somewhat emotional (but very different, of course) issue to me as well, as you can probably tell.
So I would encourage you to keep raising awareness and speak up. Sometimes there will be a bit of conflict, and right now a lot of people feel a bit on the edge. And I'm not going to lie, there are a number of issues (regional and global) that will have a harder time finding connection, because of distances and awareness and familiarity. But all that doesn't make it any less right for you to speak up as well.
I'll probably not comment too much here about this going forward as well. I'm lacking familiarity myself in many of these areas. It's just that the general ability to do speak up is dear to my heart, and that's the place where my original comments were coming from.
Indeed. Any political stance, no matter what it is, excludes or offends someone. A project like Rust should itself be inclusive and thus impartial, which in turn makes any kind of political comment wholly inappropriate. The very existence of such tweets from an apparently official source causes me to question the professionalism, impartiality and inclusiveness of this project.
Whilst humans are themselves political, a project that intends to be inclusive and beneficial for all cannot and must never stray into political comment, no matter how strongly felt the issues might be.
I see that the latest tweet from the account in question states that the "account will pause tweeting until further notice". This is a very sensible step, although it is still done with yet another politically charged statement (which again is wholly inappropriate for a hopefully impartial project's official communications channel).
The tweets in question are fine as an individual person's political viewpoint -- but they are wholly misplaced on a Rust's official communications channel.
By all means, accept that humans are personally political but nevertheless please have the professionalism, inclusiveness, and basic respect for others who might not share your views or particular concerns to keep any mention or discussion of politics out of official announcements, official comments, or official communications channels.
The whole Rust's Code of Conduct is a political statement, set of a policies.
Rust team made some work (and statements) about diversity, about minorities - it was all political gestures (and I do support them).
And only now some people are annoyed enough to make such post. What an interesting filter to politics.
I think you're painting a very black-and-white picture, where being non-inclusive is by-definition "bad", therefore we'll redefine the "ok" kind of exclusions as not-really-exclusions, so we can continue to define our policy as strictly inclusive.
I believe it is perfectly ok to exclude certain offensive views and the people that have them. I'd certainly define this as a non-inclusive policy, and I don't believe that this is a bad thing, it's just plain honesty.
Some people, like racists, aren't welcome here. That's by-definition non-inclusive towards them. This is ok, and in many ways a good thing. It's not something we should be ashamed of. We have to accept that we must find more nuanced ways to represent our policies than "we're inclusive, everyone is included", and that there's nothing wrong with this.
I would like to add the CoC say's we should be open to everyone, that doesn't mean someone who is homophobic cant join, the CoC is a contract we sign that we wont bash the gay for being gay, and we don't bash the homophobic person for being homophobic. The CoC goes both ways, it tries to include everyone not just the LGBTQ+ community. Until someone (on either side) starts bashing the other person, they are both following the CoC no-matter their stance.
Taking the stance that police brutality should stop makes it exclusive to people who don't believe in it, in the same way that saying gay people are bad in some way, would be exclusive to gay people. We don't exclude gay people, and we shouldn't exclude people who are against the statement made by the twitter account. If we do we should change the CoC to exclude people the core team doesn't want in their community, because saying they are not welcome on twitter, is contrary to saying they are welcome in the CoC.
I think you're painting a very black-and-white picture, where being non-inclusive is by-definition "bad", therefore we'll redefine the "ok" kind of exclusions as not-really-exclusions, so we can continue to define our policy as strictly inclusive.
I believe it is perfectly ok to exclude certain offensive views and the people that have them. I'd certainly define this as a non-inclusive policy, and I don't believe that this is a bad thing, it's just plain honesty.
Some people aren't welcome here. That's by-definition non-inclusive towards them. This is ok, and in many ways a good thing. It's not something we should be ashamed of. We have to accept that we must find more nuanced ways to represent our policies than "we're inclusive, everyone is included", and that there's nothing wrong with this.
Unfortunately it's not clear from the mail list's threading whom this is in response to but it looks like it could be my comment, so I'll address it as such.
I think you're painting a very black-and-white picture, where being non-inclusive is by-definition "bad",
Yes, that's right. Non-inclusive is bad. Excluding people due to politicisation (whatever form that takes) is bad.
therefore we'll redefine the "ok" kind of exclusions as not-really-exclusions, so we can continue to define our policy as strictly inclusive.
In case this was a response to me, I said nothing to that effect.
I believe it is perfectly ok to exclude certain offensive views and the people that have them.
No, it is not ok. Who is to define what these "certain offensive views" that are worthy of censorship are? Some saintly committee of "offensiveness deciders"? You? No, better by far to avoid all political comment from official communications channels.
As I said before, it is of course fine for individuals to retain their own political views and their own ideas of what is "offensive", but to allow such views into official communications channels is always divisive, always damaging, always unprofessional.
I'd certainly define this as a non-inclusive policy, and I don't believe that this is a bad thing, it's just plain honesty.
I am sure that it honestly reflects your views but it's a divisive, damaging, unprofessional, attitude that is unhealthy for any community.
Some people aren't welcome here.
Who? Me, for disagreeing with you? You haven't said so explicitly but your attitude is definitely making me feel exceedingly unwelcome.
Some people aren't welcome here. That's by-definition non-inclusive towards them. This is ok, and in many ways a good thing. It's not something we should be ashamed of.
We have to accept that we must find more nuanced ways to represent our policies than "we're inclusive, everyone is included", and that there's nothing wrong with this.
Are we speaking at cross purposes? It is obviously fine for an organisation to clearly state policies and to eject people who egregiously breach them but to allow politics into official communications channels is nevertheless always damaging. Iindeed, one policy would hopefully be to disallow political comment in official communication channels.
The aim of developing Rust is to make the world closer to a certain ideal world. This ideal world is an ideology, and some people could find it is not ideal. This ideal world seems to have these properties:
people do not fear bugs or panics while using a computer;
computers are more useful because programs are faster and lighter;
things are interoperable;
developers can use free software;
etc.
If you think these properties are intrinsically good (or are consequences of intrinsically good properties), being rational means acting the way which will the most probably make them them real. Rust may be a part of the solution, so it is rational to develop it.
Let's assume a group of people starts a project of which the target is this ideal world. It's absolutely legitimate that they express these political opinions using the project's official label, because these opinions are the core of the project. (e.g. stop a contract with a company because this company is harmful for free software developers) But if they express opinions that are not consequences of the project's ideology (either incompatible or unrelated), this is unfair. (e.g. death penalty for murderers or free license prohibition)
I am sorry that's how you interpreted it, I am just saying that, if we want to be inclusive as we claim to be, racist and people who think police brutality should be welcome too. Until they out hate towards another group of course.
Being inclusive means being inclusive to everyone, not just the ones who agree with you. If, hypothetically, a white supremacist would join the community, they should be welcome, when this person starts to out their disaproval, they are not being inclusive to other people, and thus breaking the CoC.
It doesn't matter who someone is, it is about how they behave in the community, inclusive == inclusive, breaking CoC == breaking CoC, it doesn't matter where you're from, who you are, what your background is, what you identify with, who you vote for, or what your stance is on police brutality, as long as they are being respectful withing the community, as long as they are not breaking the rust CoC, that should be welcome.
Indeed, but its about the ideaology, not about the person. Someone shouldnt be able to go into the rust community and start talking about how some group ruins the US, that shouldn't be allowed. But it is the talking that is not being allowed, the hatefulness towards other people. That exact same person, should still feel welcome, he should feel save just like everyone else. Just like they shouldnt talk bad about LGTBQ+ people, we shouldnt talk bad about people who disagree with us. If we protect ourselves with the rust CoC, others should be protected by that same CoC too, the CoC isn't a one-way law, its there to protect everyone.
Moderation note: Folks, you all were doing great yesterday. But this thread is devolving into a rapid fire tit-for-tat discussion that isn't going to go anywhere productive. I want to keep this thread open so that community member voices can be heard, but this has to be done in a constructive manner.
As a specific point of advice: please do your best to avoid absolutist statements. Instead, consider approaching this topic from a place of good faith understanding.
I feel obligated to remind folks of my advice: give yourself 10 minutes (or more) before hitting submit after typing your response. Consider the weight of your words and whether your comment meaningfully advances the discussion forward in a constructive fashion.
I strongly feel we should not frame the question in this way (or at least, not only in this way). As I said in my earlier post, opposing police brutality is more than just opposing police brutality. By framing the conversation as "people who think police brutality is OK" (PWTPBOK) vs. the rest of us, you're implying that the only reason someone could have for being offended/excluded/etc. by the tweet is because they are perfectly fine with police brutality.
There is perhaps a broader argument about whether the community should be inclusive of all or merely inclusive of most, but it's not necessary to fall back on the inclusive of all argument to think this tweet was in poor taste and generally should not have been written. "It's fine to exclude PWTPBOK, but the tweet is problematic for a variety of other reasons" is a coherent position.
I am saying we shouldnt exlude them. Feeling like they are better than other people shouldnt hinder your ability from engaging in discussions about rust.
If you want to be inclusive to everyone, you cant exlude anyone.
Being inclusive is a big part of the rust community, so I think we should try and be inclusive and not exlude people based on their political views.
I do think individuals within the community, weather they are maintainers, decision-makers, or just participants, are allowed to out their negative opinions about others outside the community. But the community itself should be open to everyone, and everyone should feel welcome, and we should do our best to make everyone feel included, to everyone.
If I ware to think about joining a community where everyone says they are straight up against every one of my political views, I would feel welcome, because this community isnt political, it doesn't matter who I vote for. But if the community as a whole, said "we are against your political views" I would feel like the community itself would be political, as if anyone with my political views isnt welcome.
Yes I don't mean this specific tweet, I thought this thread was about being political in general.
I don't really have an opinion about this tweet specific, I was more making an argument about getting political in general. I dont think anyone actually goes "YEAH POLICE BRUTALITY IS FUN!!" but for other topics this might be the case.
Since I dont really have an argument to make besides inclusivity for all should mean inclusivity for all, and I think that point is made, I will probably keep silent.
I am only replying to this post because I feel that the points risen can be discussed without derailing this thread.
Completely agree on those. And Rust does indeed do a great job trying to attain the ideal state. Which is why I like using Rust. My affection towards Rust is entirely confined within the boundary of technology. I like Rust not because the logo is cool. I like Rust not because it has a mascot. Rust does one thing and one thing good: being a true successor to C++. I do not expect Rust to tackle complex, deeply ingrained social injustices. But it seems that idea is not very popular today. People today like to put a twitter persona to things.
Let's assume a group of people starts a project of which the target is this ideal world. It's absolutely legitimate that they express these political opinions using the project's official label, because these opinions are the core of the project.
While on the surface level it is indeed a noble cause I personally don't think it's very pragmatic. In a world of free market, pragmatism is the key to survival. If we select which users should use our product and which producers we accept a product from, we are in a nose-dive towards an unsustainable future.
For example, Microsoft proudly supports ICE. ICE, nowadays, if not almost always has been, an organization that targets marginalized people and puts children in camps. Microsoft provides Orwellian technology (face/iris scanners) to help hunt down people who just wants a better life. Provides user data to the authoritarian US government. Back in the day Microsoft was at open war with the free software community (I would argue, they secretly still are in many cases).
(It's one thing to provide the government with service, and another is saying that they are proud of it, which is arguably a political move)
But did Microsoft reject ICE? If Microsoft does not provide them with those technology, some other company will. Microsoft knows that and continues to provide them with their service. It's Microsoft's way to thrive.
Does this mean a user should avoid all Microsoft products? No! Many users including myself use many Microsoft technologies. I can't avoid it.
Same goes for Google, Apple etc.
Judge a tech organization by the quality of the tech, not morality.
Again, there is a high chance that the clothes you are wearing are made in China if not, the electronics certainly are. But if you were a business, would you stop doing business with Chinese companies? In a moral world you wouldn't because these products are made in sweatshops and you don't want to enable these companies in China. But in real world you would. Doing business with China does not make you a bad person.
Rust is a free and open source community project. It is not driven by a corporation. The action the Rust (organization) takes should also be voted by the community and be done only if there's a decisive win.
Rejecting racists, misogynists and criminals is an authoritarian move. A true liberal move would be rejecting racism, misogony and crime. Then again, that's my political view and I don't like to bring politics in maths/programming. But it seems people map Rust to a moral organization instead of a programming language (and its users).
Also it is to be noted that the gist of my original post is not to protest Rust's move of temporarily stay away from twitter in protestation of police brutality, it's the following two:
Why did Rust not do the same when other injustices took place, if it wants to be inclusive and welcoming to all?
Why did Rust argue that sharing technical knowledge is less importance than protesting police brutality?
This thread is not about should Rust allow intolerance. Nobody in the thread says so and will say so. And I would even go as far as to argue that if asking these two question makes me an intolerant person, it's dangerously close to modern day McCarthyism.
Moderation note: I've removed some heated posts that are veering way off course and into the weeds of a CoC debate. This thread is not and will not be about debating the particulars of the CoC. Please stay on the original topic.
If you have questions about the moderation here, then please contact us privately.
|