I’m a bit hesitant to say this out loud, but… you can only cry over this “betrayal”, “mistreatment” and “cruelty” if you have lived a very protected life.
You just summarised 98% of all current cultural problem in Silicon Valley.
For some people, crying is just a way to deal with emotions. So please don’t judge.
I’ve been a professional software developer for more than 20 years. I still find myself weeping at work once in a while, especially when overwhelmed with hardship and negative feelings. I don’t see how this would be a sign of living “a very protected life.”
Also, this is definitely not true—-a spouse cheating on you would be a “betrayal” but I wouldn’t fault anyone for weeping over it.
This further emphasizes OP's point—nothing the Rust team can do to you should approach the emotional impact of marital betrayal.
It’s already barely acceptable in a purely American context. To me as a European, this is extremely off putting and culturally out of line which is a recurring problem with Rust.
So they need reverse psychology to express anger at injustice because of the Code of Conduct? What is this world we're building?
Everyone is free to nope out. And people noping out is something that Rust (the community) needs to take into account. _Because_ it depends on them. But as is.. I’m unsure if this kind of emotional involvement is even something Rust (the project) _should_ want
* Person is invited to talk
* Person asks "You know about X, right?"
* They say "sure, it's no problem"
* They talk in private and take decisions in improper venues
* The guy is slighted at the last minute, told it is because of X
... is an all too "professional" way to do it. This is how professionals will do it, when they want to let you know they don't like you. With a little deniability, but not too much. If what the complainant alleges is true, there are too much social skill at work here - skill at exquisitely snubbing someone.
I am a bit out of the loop (I don't know who the people involved are), but I tend to agree, I think. Sounds like a mix of miscommunication and group politics. Those are things that people might get upset, but the exaggerated response sounds like a cheap appeal to raw emotions.
In our paroxysm of righteous correctionism, we've lost track that that is really good advice, even though crudely phrased.
Part of adulting is responding proportionally to childish behavior in others. Events like this feel like my toddlers fighting—he takes her pencil so she tears his paper so he hits her so she comes crying to mommy.
The adult in the room deescalates, they don't write an emotional blog about how betrayed they feel on behalf of someone else.
The real question is if the Rust project has an equitable governance structure that minimizes imbalances of power or if it doesn't. If it does then the author should follow that instead of a large angry blog post. If it doesn't then he may as well go with the large angry blog post.
We're teaching our children to respond appropriately to conflict—in the situation above, either one of them can deescalate by approaching the conflict reasonably. He could have avoided it altogether by asking nicely for her pencil. She could deescalate by recognizing that he really wanted her pencil and making a trade that they both are happy with. It's hard for them to do because their escalatory actions feel more immediately effective at bringing "justice", but they don't work out in the long run.
The cycle of childishness isn't going to be solved by a post that triggers an internet mob, that's just another childish response in the cycle.
