Hacker News Reader

Comment by steveklabnik | Hacker News Reader

> is clearly written from the perspective of and to be interpreted as the opinion of the Mozilla project leadership

Could you say a bit more about what makes you read it like this? It is from the Core Team, one of which is employed by Mozilla to work on Rust, and one of which was laid off and contributed to Rust in their spare time. (out of 9 people)

Mozilla is an important part of this transition story, which is why we included the stuff about them; there's no way to ignore the intellectual property owner when discussing how that property will be transferred to another entity.

View on HN

While I don't share the sentiment of the OP, I would guess lines like this may be the key for them:

>Mozilla and the Rust Core Team are happy to announce plans to create a Rust foundation. Our goal is to have the first iteration of the foundation up and running by the end of the year.

I read this as "Mozilla is currently still largely in control. This is the moment where they will cede to the new, more independent, foundation." But the fact that it follows "Mozilla and the Rust Core Team" with "our" may taint the rest of the use of "our" throughout the post for others.

I see! Thank you. We spent a lot of time going over every word in this post, so I am not sure if we can edit that to make it more clear, but I'll take a look.

I'd wait a bit and see if this sentiment is common before worrying about it. I found the message clear and believe most others will as well.

I appreciate that. It ends up being a small diff but does help clarify, I think. Thank you! https://github.com/rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org/pull/674

What would you like it to read? There's a collaborative process going on and Mozilla is supporting us. There's no reason for us on that angle to frame it any other way.

Mozilla has been holding the Rust trademark because of history, but also in trust.

Yes, you can apply a negative reading to this, but this is a really big jump. You could also be happy about the fact that not all is broken.

I was trying to step into the shoes of a less generous reader there, sorry if that wasn't clear. I think the post was clear and I agree. Mozilla is still a massive steward and this post was made to directly address that.

I read it as "Mozilla holds all the legal assets and will work with the new foundation to transfer them" – so that's probably trademarks, logos, infrastructure, etc.

Seems pretty straightforward.

This is a standard thing in English academic grammar. When you are listing multiple entities, you list them alphabetically. That's the most likely the reason for how it was written. Academic papers list all authors alphabetically and papers are named are named after the first few authors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com