The project leadership has continuously failed in these areas, and there has only been an effort to improve those things when they’ve been publicly called out. Without people openly communicating leadership failures, problems have often been ignored and maligned.
People sometimes drop the ball, sometimes repeatedly, especially in committees. Public shaming is generally reserved for egregious acts, and so needs to be justified.
Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit.
To be clear: I am willing to entertain the accusation that the Rust team is toxic, but that’s a case that needs to be … you know … actually argued.
> Attempting to shame people, without explaining what exactly happened, suggests a hissy fit.
Feels like self-projecting given how much you’re commenting in multiple threads to say “it’s not a big deal”, I don’t think someone who thinks it’s not a big deal would comment and try to argue so much if they actually thought it was.
That is, I think, a reasonable expectation.
They did write about compile-time reflection, their talk was part of the conference[1], and now they’re not doing the talk. That’s enough to me take what they say at face value, especially now that in the wake of this there have been resignations in the leadership.
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20230523045330/https://rustconf....
So how do you wanna settle the difference in social norms? Who died and made you the gatekeeper of social norms?
If the Rust foundation doesn't want stories about jerking someone around, maybe they can not jerk people around?
By all means, withdraw, but why the need to publicly shame?