The context that lead DTolnay to write this: https://lemmy.world/post/4393780
I’m not really sensing contrition here. For those who don’t know, contrition is the part of an apology where the apologizers commit to changing something about themselves, improving who they are as people, so that the trespass is not repeated in the future. Without contrition, dtolnay will do this again.
Is there really a “fiasco” because somebody can’t hold a talk? Am I getting this right?
No, not really.
Months ago, there was a fiasco because somebody’s keynote talk was suddenly and inexplicably downgraded to a regular talk because the Rust Project “did not want to endorse” the talk, despite nominating and encouraging the speaker in the first place. This resulted in the speaker withdrawing their talk, and multiple public apologies from some of the people involved. https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023
https://hackmd.io/@Manishearth/SkLZzzbLn
https://gist.github.com/m-ou-se/ca7d7edf778a9b93b812512b3d8288f5
Currently there is a fiasco because it turns out (one of?) the voices behind the inexplicable decision to downgrade the talk was dtolnay, lead Serde developer, who recently came under fire for publishing precompiled proc macro binaries in Serde and his response to the ensuing criticism. The perception is that dtolnay, who has done lots of work with proc macros and made several detailed suggestions as to their future in Rust, quashed the RustConf talk because he disagreed with the premise of the talk in favor of his own ideas about macros.
Thank you for the context. That was a good summary.
I think people consider it a fiasco because of the amount of backlash, drama, and accusations that surrounded it. The whole thing showed failures in the way things were decided and communicated as well.
