It's the best they can do for the rust community.

Pointing out some specific things is hard as it's most likely not one specific thing but many small things plus some "that's enough" bigger thing(s) and because it likely has various negative effects including:

-people focusing on that specific thing, instead of the general problem (unaccountability)

-people overreacting, e.g. starting a witch hunt with serve negative effects for the community

- ... (other more vague/implicit things, like leaking of private information)

Agreed. There was no good option - this was the least worst option they could come up with.

They explained why: accountability and structure.

Do you need specific instances, date and timestamped?

Yes. If you're going to accuse someone of something, have details.

It's a resignation, not a prosecution.

Edit:

If it helps, imagine a time you quit your job.

Did you provide a datestamped list of incidents that lead to your decision to quit?

Or were you, by chance, slightly more vague and provide something along the lines of: "The culture/fit/hours/goals/growth do not align with mine so I am resigning."?

I've always written out what specific issues I had that led me to resign. If you don't say anything, nothing changes. A resignation letter is a professional curtesy, the point is to provide useful, professional information. Of course in some instances there were personal factors that influenced my decision, and I didn't list those out in detail, but I let them know that those were issues on my end that the employer didn't need to address. There's no need to beat a dead horse and bring up every single grievance, and you can be diplomatic, but if an issue is bad enough to warrant resignation, it really should be mentioned in the resignation letter.

I'd certainly never insinuate that my employer had done something wrong but refuse to clarify.

>I'd certainly never insinuate that my employer had done something wrong but refuse to clarify.

I suppose we're of different opinion, as I considered the resignation letter to have enough clarity to the intended recipients to be acceptable. They didn't say "I quit, the end". They pointed at the specific areas of issue (accountability, structure) of which the core team is likely well aware of the minutiae.

Just because it wasn't explained incident by incident to the public does not mean the "employer" (or, in this case, core team) did not understand the message.

I would wager that incidents were brought up, not addressed (or addressed as a WNF), escalated, then resulted in this resignation. The people relevant to each stage will be familiar with each stage, and should hopefully be able to follow the progression.

The public does not need to be privy to each and every individual incident, as much as everyone would like to butter their popcorn.

They dropped a pretty beefy bombshell in the last paragraph that there were issues beyond accountability that they refuse to disclose. I'm absolutely certain that the core team has a good idea what they are talking about, the problem is this is a public letter, the intended audience is everyone, and they specifically attack the core team's credibility.

When I resign from a job, I send my resignation to my employer in private. I wouldn't put anything in it that I'm not comfortable with becoming public, and if they wish to share what I wrote that's fine, but the purpose of being discreet is to leave the level of disclosure up to the other party's discretion. You don't send a company wide email saying "management knows what they did, don't believe a word they say, I'm out, peace!"

>is this is a public letter, the intended audience is everyone

Just because something is public does not mean the intended audience is also everyone. Something can be intended for a subset of people, but broadly published. But I think this has been hashed out somewhere else in the thread.

I think "management knows what they did, don't believe a word they say, I'm out, peace!" is a bit of a disingenuous reading of the letter, but you have a valid point about the last paragraph and I'll walk back what I said a little bit.

You're a class act. Next time I leave somewhere I hope to be half as thoughtful.

By the public nature of it, it's a bit of a persecution.

Persecution: hostility and ill-treatment, especially on the basis of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation or political beliefs.

What I read does not seem to fit this definition, but maybe to others it does.

That's one of the dictionary definitions. That's not how it's used in everyday parlance however. It's usually used to mean harassment, usually of a group.

> To harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict

At this point I think we might just be talking past each other, but I fail to see how this resignation letter meets that definition either. I don't see the letter as harassment to the core team. It also doesn't strike me as a letter designed to injure or grieve.

Semantics aside, the letter may not give enough information to you, but it gives enough information that anyone privy to the internal team dynamics will understand the underlying issues and the logical progression of events that lead to the resignation.