Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wolverine876 859 days ago
Maybe there is some misunderstanding here (and I was surprised to see it): You took the time to post a comment that,

1) Reduces Mitchell's role in supporting Rust

2) Emphasizes Mitchell's role in the layoffs / reduction of Rust.

What was your point? If I misunderstood, my apologies.

1 comments

Don’t ignore context. The comment to which my first comment above replied implied that Mitchell (for Mozilla) was due credit for Rust.

Your (1) is still planting a falsehood: Mitchell’s role when I sponsored Rust was not CEO, she did not have to approve or reject Rust, but she did assent to my advice that we make Rust an official project.

This is not an attack, it’s simply what happened. You are the one who keeps concern trolling, or whatever it is you are doing, to give Mitchell undue credit or to shield her from anything that could be taken as criticism.

Grandparent of comment to which I first replied:

> I can't think of any important things Mozilla has created since pushing Brendan Eich out 9 years ago.

Comment to which I replied, which you wrote:

> Rust, for example.

Let's recap, since you seem to have a very short context window or memory. Someone wrote they couldn't think of anything important Mozilla created after I left. You cited Rust. I testified that Rust started many years before I left and I was Rust's C-level sponsor and immediate colleague of its creator.

You then reappear after several nesting replies to imply I'm lying and have bad motives. After this, here we are with you ignoring your own false claim that Mozilla created Rust after I left. It seems to me, without ascribing motive, that you are the one with a weak grasp on the truth here, even the truth of what you wrote in prior comments on this page.

I think the public and personal contexts are getting mixed together here, to bad effect (as always).

It's a personal situation for you and I can't imagine how much s-t you have heard and taken over the years. You have the misfortune to be personally invested in a public issue, and I'm glad I'm not in your shoes. If we were at a dinner party, of course I wouldn't say a word about it - it would be rude to you and you know infinitely more about it.

But we're not at a private dinner; we're in a public context. People discuss public issues without being experts or researching every detail; they will get some things wrong or be imprecise. Also, they are just not as focused as you are - understandably - on the same things and at the same level detail. When I credited Mozilla with Firefox and Rust, I didn't specifically credit Mitchell Baker with it, nor did I care about that detail of who did what (also, I didn't talk about creation; much of the Rust development was after you - but I only say that because you care; I don't). That's really important to you and so that's what you focused on and I can see where you got that impression - it just wasn't important enough to clarify. It was a bit sloppy, but I'm not writing a dissertation or a contract.

You did inject yourself personally into a 'public context'; I don't think the anger is appropriate, nor your bullshit about my motives. What I wrote was a genuine complement to everyone at Mozilla, including you: It was reminding the world that Mozilla has done so far is spectacular - unreal, heroic achievements that changed the world, twice over. Mozilla is just Mozilla to me, not one person or another.

Still, I apologize that I wasn't more polite when I remarked about potential bias. I didn't respond directly to you, but I should have been careful to make it respectful - not because you are a big deal on some scale, but just the opposite: you're a human being. I knew you were around and regardless of context, I don't buy that public figures are free game for abuse. Good luck with Brave, another great idea that I hope changes the world.

What a surfeit of words to fail to justify your false reply about "important things Mozilla has created" after I left.

You were the one who insinuated something about motives, here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39312219

I already said I was not going to speculate on your motives, after easily showing your false claim: that Mozilla created Rust after I left.

So the only "bullshit" about motives has come from you. And you are the only one who seemed emotional, if not angry, to the point you threw "attack" as a typical DARVO move. This is pure projection.

It matters who did what, when. Especially in view of Mitchell's power of the purse at Mozilla. Yes, she could have killed Rust, but it would have blown up in her face and she had no need to kill it. No, she does not get credit for creating Rust even after I left. The Rust team was working on spin-out well before they all left. As for Servo, it is better off out of Mozilla: https://news.itsfoss.com/servo-rust-web-engine/.