Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fwlr 1121 days ago
My understanding of the situation is this:

At the request of Rust Project, JeanHeyd is asked to give a keynote at RustConf. JeanHeyd is reluctant, worried that their topic is too speculative and too much like a proposal for implementing a Rust feature. They ask around and get told it’s definitely ok, please don’t decline the talk, etc. Later, after the talk is prepared, RustConf contacts JeanHeyd to say their talk has been downgraded from keynote, at the request of Rust Project. The reason given is that Rust Project does not want to endorse their direction on this feature. It is not a very good reason, as JeanHeyd had already taken many steps to make it clear in the talk that this is speculative, was not offered a chance to make changes to the talk that make it even more clear that Rust Project doesn’t endorse it, was only giving a talk on this topic because Rust Project requested it in the first place, and there have been other keynotes that also run afoul of this reason but were not bumped in this manner. JeanHeyd writes a blog post explaining this, retracting their talk entirely, and posing the question: what is the real reason for the bump? Later, JT resigns from all roles in rustlang, citing JeanHeyd’s blog post but not otherwise elaborating.

Obviously, all the interesting stuff is happening below the surface here. I’ll hazard a few guesses (and that’s all they are, just guesses; I don’t know the situation and I don’t know the people in it, nor am I speaking for them):

1. “Losing an internal political battle”. JT may have been involved in having Rust Project push JeanHeyd for the talk. Others in Rust Project were against the talk, and had Rust Project reverse course on it. JT resigns in protest.

2. “Discovering and being dismayed by internal politics”. People outside the Rust Project were echoing JeanHeyd’s question, what is the real reason here? JT is well-connected and respected in the Rust community and may have tried to find out the real reason. Perhaps JT finds the real reason and is disgusted (or perhaps JT gets similarly stonewalled, and is disgusted by that), and resigns.

3. (More speculative, based on both JeanHeyd and JT being open about their neurodivergence, drawing on my own as well) “Autists trying to avoid internal politics”. Many aspects of how Rust Project handled this situation would be uncomfortable for autistic individuals (opaque decision-making process, abrupt reversal, inadequate justification, not up for debate - to name a few). JT may therefore find it inhospitable, and so resigns.

1 comments

Completely unrelated, but as a non native speaker of English I was completely lost in the "their"s, not knowing who they refer to.

Then I realized that JT may prefer to be addressed this way, which is indeed the case according to their Twitter handle.

It is a shame that better pronouns were not promoted in English to simplify the understanding of sentences where they both refer to a single person and a group.

English is extremely stingy with pronouns in general; beyond singular vs plural they, there's also no proper plural you, no modern informal you (it was 'thou', but that's archaic), no exclusive vs inclusive we, and so on.
> no exclusive vs inclusive we

Thank you for teaching me something - I did not know that this existed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity)

> there's also no proper plural you

I don't know what y'all are talking about.

All y'all use y'all?
I love y'all, both the word and y'all. Wish it was more widely used outside of the US South.
in my dialect of English we just say "you all" or "all of you"
> I don't know what y'all are talking about.

"You" can refer to either one person or multiple people.

And y'all only refers to multiple people. I guess it's kinda a plural "you". ;)
“You guys” is the plural form of “you” for the majority of American English-speakers in colloquial contexts.
Or "y'all", or "youse", or lots of other variants. But there's no standard, is the thing.
I noticed this when I was writing it and tried to use names rather than pronouns as much as possible. I actually use “their” all the time for everyone, I wasn’t aware that JT requests it in their Twitter profile. About fifteen years ago, when I first heard about gender-neutral pronouns, the objection at the time was “it’s harder to write and more confusing”. I started doing it as a challenge to see if it really was hard or not. In that fifteen years, you are in fact the first person to have ever noticed and said something (congratulations).
> In that fifteen years, you are in fact the first person to have ever noticed and said something (congratulations).

This may be because I am French and we do not "reuse" pronouns (in the sense that "their" always refers to a group). I know however that "their" use in single form has a long history in English and I therefore try to use "their" like you most of the time when it helps to generalize.

We have new constructs in French such as iel (il + elle = he + she) which is used by some and by others not (and forbidden (or very strongly discouraged, I do not remember) in national education). I do not know if this is good or bad, it has the advantage to address males and females as a group (it is otherwise "he" or "hes" (plural of "he")).