We have the core team to provide overall oversight over all of these teams to ensure things are coherent.
It’s not the best language ever, but it is better at this point than similar languages such as Python or Ruby (good async, good type system, good module system, no decades-long versioning crisis).
The last part of your comment hints that your objections to Rust’s governance may be more political than language design related.
I checked the code of conduct and it didn't seem too political to me, internet forums have had those kinds of rules for decades. What it is, though, is an example of an administrative artifact, too many of which will suck energy away as top level people spend more and more of their time not thinking about the end product.
> We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. [...] In particular, we don't tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
Are you worried that non-marginalized groups will be harassed when contributing to Rust? Could you give some examples of harassment you worry will be tolerated when non-marginalized people do it but not when marginalized people do it?
I'm not the one who needs to give examples. They stated that they particularly "don't tolerate excluding people in socially marginalized groups". So, I imply that they are going to be more strict against this behavior in that specific case, otherwise there would be no use in making that point.
For example:
"We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone."
Is a perfectly understandable clause, and no further information would be needed in case they were not planning on discriminating based on the "group" that people belong to.
It's analogous to saying: "Killing is bad, it's particularly bad if the person you kill is a politician."
It implies that killing a politician is morally worse than killing someone else. If you didn't want to imply that, you would simply say "Killing is bad", which everyone can understand.