I was hoping Rust would be promising, but it seems to be run by a top heavy bunch of managers,
The Rust language community is in disarray following the resignation of the entire moderation team, citing the "structural unaccountability" of the core development team. The moderation team, represented by Andrew Gallant, posted its resignation to GitHub yesterday, stating that it was "done in protest of the Core Team placing …
I get the suspicion there's actually something going on within the core team that the Mod team feels they should act on, but can't because Core is blocking any such action. And they're avoiding actually mentioning any of that because it's bad enough it'll make all of them look very bad.
There's 10 "teams". Most open source projects don't even have 10 people actively contributing. That's a lot of managing for what is a project which should have a fairly focused scope.
What it sounds like is a management power struggle with the losing party resigning. The Core Team are the ones who are supposed to be in overall charge, so it's no surprise that they came out on top.
We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...
: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...
: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...
: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
I don't think 10 teams is necessarily excessive. The Rust project has many parts that need a bit different skills: defining the language itself, creating and maintaining the implementation and related tools, documenting, web site management, testing, keeping CI up, and probably some I missed. It is an uncommonly ambitious project, most other open-source projects are far simpler.
Read what most of those teams are engaged in. Most aren't touching the core language, they're working on specific areas like embedding, documentation etc.
The moderation group just appears to the ones who take care of the mailing lists, set the code of conduct, approving people, banning obnoxious people and the like.
No, moderating the communication channels. This is hardly a controversial thing to require in a large open source project. Do you think Debian, Apache or any other open source collective don't have moderators fulfilling similar roles to take care of forums, mailing lists etc?
seems to be run by a top heavy bunch of managers
The bureaucracy-speak quoted within the article was making my brain fog and my eyes glaze over.
(Yeah I THOUGHT I smelled 'bureaucracy')
All of this anal retentivity over CoC and violations and bans and @#$% makes me wanna puke my guts out (wanting very much to continue on with something along the lines of "vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert" like a famous Monty Python sketch... but would THAT violate their CoC? Oh the tangled webs we weave!!!)
Then it's important enough to specifically say why, so others are aware of the actual issue, so they can fix it. You're supposedly resigning in the hopes of changing things, after all.
Otherwise it's just showboating & attention-whoring.
Just saying "the core team sucks" is not helping anything.
Saying "my manager sucks" doesn't help. Saying "my manager hogs all the credit and doesn't reward anyone on the team" is something people can do something about.
`Just saying "the core team sucks" is not helping anything.`
It's helping the ex-mods preserve their sanity and dignity in a no-win situation. If they are not being allowed to do their jobs, and will later get the blame for not having done their jobs, then it's time to walk. Or would you prefer they set themselves on fire in protest?
would you prefer they set themselves on fire in protest?
No, but there is holding a dialog to fix things, and there is constructive criticism.
On one end of the spectrum there's just pointlessly bitching and moaning, and on the other, there's actively trying to fix things.
How long do you keep trying before it's time to give up and walk away?
I'm absolutely certain they've been actively trying to fix things for a very long time. This isn't the kind of decision one takes on a whim.
From the way all this has been phrased, it's very clear that someone or someones on the core team has been breaking the rules repeatedly and has refused to follow them and/or accept censure. The mod team clearly don't want to name them for whatever reason, so are being rather careful about details as otherwise it'll be very obvious who.
You're both right, which is why the only way to address the problem is to point out the specific details and let others make up our own minds as to which point of view we ought to share. That would also help assess whatever structural or leadership changes should be made (like, should the moderation team be eliminated, or should the code of conduct be abolished, or should someone be removed from the core team, or something else). In hiding the details, the moderators forfeited the moral high ground and harmed their former colleagues by ensuring endless unresolvable controversy without offering any way to fix the underlying problem if one exists or judge for ourselves what solution might be best. It's absolutely bizarre to resign in protest while purposely refusing to shed any light whatever on what specifically you're protesting. It's a teachable moment: never do this.
"it's just showboating & attention-whoring."
Has anyone ever joined a so-called "Team" formed to ensure adherence to a CoC who isn't an attention whore and showboater?
Have any of the above ever been actually useful to the product being produced, or do they impede the progress of that project?
Gibe me one halfway decent BDFL over all these cross-purpose "Teams" any day of the week.
 If you can hear the capitol "T" when they are talking, keep well away for your sanity's sake. It's a sure sign that the bureaucracy has become more important than the project itself.
Has anyone ever joined a so-called "Team" formed to ensure adherence to a CoC who isn't an attention whore and showboater?...Have any of the above ever been actually useful to the product being produced, or do they impede the progress of that project?
On the board of a small non-profit, my responsibilities included "governance"and "board development." Basically, help the Board function effectively and responsibly, and continue to do so. This included things like ensuring that everyone on the Board understood their roles and their obligations. Getting concerns aired before they became conflicts (and before those conflicts became crises). Finding candidates that the Board could recruit. Arranging training. And yes, helping the Board and its members live up to the Code of Conduct and other legal and ethical commitments.
It was hard work supporting everyone else for very little recognition even within the Board. Total opposite of your "attention whore and showboater."
It's absolutely necessary to the final product. If your organization cares nothing for the actions and ethics of their leaders, that is whom you will attract. You'll lose the honest ones. If your organization is led by people who do not act honorably and respectfully, that cascades all the way down.
"Saying 'my manager sucks' doesn't help. Saying 'my manager hogs all the credit and doesn't reward anyone on the team' is something people can do something about"—but they didn't say "my manager sucks". They said "we were hired to moderate this place, but the managers exempt themselves from moderation" and possibly "and insist on doing some of the moderating themselves without us having a say in it", and, which wasn't repeated in the article, they offered to explain things a bit further when contacted personally.
What would you do? Stating exactly that and quit, or publicly complaining "but Steve has said this and John has said that", before quitting?
The core team is supposed to be in charge, that's fine. But just because you're in charge, that doesn't mean you're above the rules. A lot of people have died by not understanding that basic law of politics. (See Charles I of England, for instance.)
So there needs to be some kind of mechanism for addressing alleged rule breaches by the core team, or at least by individual members of that team. That's what is missing.