back
4 comments
I fully expect that most of the "meat" of the proposal will find its way to the final document, too. Not really surprised as all their comms so far implied that, but still disappointing.

There seems to be a total lack of understanding of the community's complaints, otherwise they wouldn't came out this "you know, we have a process, so what else do you want" response.

From the virtue signaling with the "local health regulations" and guns to the domain bans, and aggressive need for disclaimers from content creators, package names... so many issues that miraculously most other languages can live without, but somehow for Rust, it's the only way.

> We recognize that the process and communication around it could have been better.

It could have been better? I'd hoped for a little bit of taking responsibility instead of this mealy mouthed language.

Likewise with the "we've received attacks directed at Foundation members". Are we talking about people sending feedback that disagrees with the policy, or genuine threats? I'd find it hard to believe the latter has taken place.

Of course, it might've, but this is an all-too-common tactic to dismiss criticism of any kind.

It's pretty disappointing how it seems this is being handled just like any other corporate "We're doing a bad thing, but we got bad feedback, so here's a few paragraphs about our process" blog post.

I don't know much about the authors of this post, but I certainly get the vibe that this policy is going to stick around.

If I was a Rust evangelist, I'd be pissed.