Why is there so much mismanagement in the Rust foundation and core team?

Just to give everybody a perspective, read the following articles:

Could anybody explain why is it?

M concern is about how all this could potentially affect the future of the Rust language.

Why have none of these kinds of issues ever happen with other languages?(Correct me if I'm wrong)

See related post on Reddit: Reddit - Dive into anything
Regarding the above post which has been removed from Reddit,
I've asked the /r/rust community that "Do you think the Rust Foundation is damaging the future of the Rust language?".
Out of a total of 47 votes, 25 said 'Yes'.
Though I've contacted the mods on Reddit and asked them why was my post removed, and even though they did reply me back that it was caused by an "automatic moderation bot", not even this communication motivated them enough to actually reinstate the post.


I can't really tell you about the core team problems, but what I can say is that the trademark policy (the third article you list) was not a product solely of the core team. Like the title of the article says, it came largely from the Rust Foundation, a completely separate entity.


I suppose I could also add on that the controversies around the core team are mostly a result of how much impact they can have. The makeup of the core team is almost entirely different from when moderation team resigned and the HackMD post was made.

The mod resignation and keynote were also very different issues, with the mod resignation mostly being about how the core team lacked oversight while the keynote issues stemmed from improper and back channel communication.


I think partly this is due to Rust community reacting very strongly and loudly to even small problems.

The RustConf keynote drama is IMHO overblown. It was a flawed process and a poor decision, but it's a gross exaggeration to call the people involved toxic.


I have learned that when someone starts spouting accusations of "toxic" it generally means they have seen/heard something that they disagree/disapprove of. A simple disagreement over values or priorities. It is generally exaggerated out of all proportion to any harm done or usually only perceived to be done.

I learned to ignore such juvenile accusations.


I found Graydon's article pretty insightful. Keep in mind, he hasn't been part of the Rust project in nearly a decade, however.

Frankly, the impression I got from posts by those in leadership today, is that the attempt to apply an interim fix to the "core team problem" actually made things worse for this latest problem by making it harder to have clear consensus or direction. I think the leadership chat was well intentioned, and maybe it helped head off other problems, but it's definitely not appropriate for (or intended to be) a long term governance structure.


Btw, the 'toxic' terminology came from the first article I mentioned, not the keynote drama.

Have you actually read the articles?
'Toxic' is not a term one would bring up when s/he disagrees with something or someone.

Anyway, why I asked this question in the first place is that I see the main reason many other programming languages have went down is due to the mismanagement in their core team[in other ways] and not keeping up with the pace of the newer technologies.

Many people are putting their trust into the Rust language for the long run; Seeing how the management team is doing really makes me scared that they might one day screw up everything, including Rust itself.

The good thing I ever told to myself after reading any of these articles at their own time was that, "Hey, this is something of the past; it's never going to happen". But the Rust team failed me every single freaking time.

This is dangerously misleading – the policy draft was created by a collaboration between the Rust Foundation, the Rust Project, and an attorney.


does it impact to future of Rust ?

That's off the point!

Having skimmed over the "The Core Team is Toxic" post, it appears to be nothing more than a list of issues where the author disagrees with the Core Team. Mostly, the author believes that various activities should have been a higher priority, but the Core Team apparently felt otherwise. It is not entirely clear from the information presented that the Core Team was wrong on any of these, let alone that the Core Team is "toxic".

That's not to say that the Core Team doesn't have any serious issues. The post just doesn't make a good case proving it.


I forget the exact quote, but it goes something like this:

The most vicious people are the ones who believe themselves to be in the absolute moral right. They commit the most brutal of evils and justify it in their own hearts with "I am doing this for a good cause."


Looks like people on the internet overreacting as usual. Mistakes were made, but nothing that warranted so much drama and whining. It's like people can't sort problems out like adults.


Most of the discussion, if you're curious about what's going on, is on the public rfc-leadership-council chat stream.


Well, the keynote drama was caused by the current core team members; So, after all, nothing's changed.

There are issues with governance in other languages and standards bodies. In some cases, you don't hear about it because the community is not as hyper-online as the Rust community.


No, the recent issue came from the "leadership chat", which was intended as a short term stop-gap measure but then lasted way too long because it took time to design and organise the replacement.

You can see the progress on the new Leadership Council here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3392. You can probably expect an official announcement in the next few weeks (if not sooner).

I want to know who it was that cancelled the keynote by the Phd? That is just so unprofessional. One cannot simply cancel a keynote on a whim like that. It takes a lot of time and effort to prepare a keynote. It's a massive insult to the speaker.

I've found this thread containing interesting links and comments to better understand the situation.

1 Like