I can’t shake the feeling of someone making a mountain out of a molehill. I can understand the disappointment of being downgraded at the last minute, and can even understand the author’s desire to withdraw from the conference entirely, but there’s something to be said for doing so graciously. The Rust team’s decision is not prima facie unreasonable, and even if it isn’t perfect in its form, I don’t see any scandal beyond a bruised ego.
It’s possible that there are missing elements to this story, but so far I just see a lack of class over a relatively minor injury.
The author wasn't originally interested in giving a keynote. The conference organizers tried to persuade them into do so!
> It is patently obvious that somebody is pulling very weird strings behind the scenes here. At multiple junctures I said “it would be fine if we did not do this” or “I am unsure why they picked me”, but at multiple point I was told I should absolutely keep going and it was explicitly encouraged for me to go all the way with a keynote!
> Individuals in contact with me both inside and outside RustConf leadership made it abundantly clearly that this topic was perfectly fine. Furthermore, they had already met to discuss my work before hand, so at no point should anyone be confused about what my intentions and goals are.
Then the Rust Project later downgraded his talk after the author committed to giving it:
> The sudden reversal smacks of shadowy decisions that are non-transparent to normal contributors like myself.
Whether it’s malice or clumsiness isn’t relevant, it’s poor communication and process, which is the responsibility of leadership.
The project leadership has continuously failed in these areas, and there has only been an effort to improve those things when they’ve been publicly called out. Without people openly communicating leadership failures, problems have often been ignored and maligned.
Yes, it is indeed their responsibility. It is also a minor thing.
People sometimes drop the ball, sometimes repeatedly, especially in committees. Public shaming is generally reserved for egregious acts, and so needs to be justified.
Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit.
To be clear: I am willing to entertain the accusation that the Rust team is toxic, but that’s a case that needs to be … you know … actually argued.
People are free to speak their mind, they don’t have to justify that to you or anyone else.
> Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit.
Feels like self-projecting given how much you’re commenting in multiple threads to say “it’s not a big deal”, I don’t think someone who thinks it’s not a big deal would comment and try to argue so much if they actually thought it was.
They did write about compile-time reflection, their talk was part of the conference[1], and now they’re not doing the talk. That’s enough to me take what they say at face value, especially now that in the wake of this there have been resignations in the leadership.
Why not? Why must they shut up? Do you accuse them of lying? Short of that I don't see why they shouldn't report all of this if it bugs them and it's factual.
If the Rust foundation doesn't want stories about jerking someone around, maybe they can not jerk people around?
I thought it was ok. Explained what happened from their point of view so they didn't need to answer everyone individually. It sounds like they gave plenty of opportunities for the organizers to not have the talk and they waited to the last minute and even then just were not up front about what was going on. It didn't really need to be posted on hn, surely this reposting and amplifying is a worse thing than just stating what happened.
It’s possible that there are missing elements to this story, but so far I just see a lack of class over a relatively minor injury.
Have I missed something?