It seems to me more like, the prosecution decided not to present their case, and the defendant’s lawyers are trying to figure out the right motion to file.
Similarly here, they may not be able to reveal whatever is going wrong due to anti disparagement clause or threats of defamation. literally the only thing you can do is quit, which is what they did, which sends a very strong signal to outsiders.
Without knowing details, I can’t judge who’s (more) right here.
That strong signal _can_ be misused, and sometimes is misused. “You’re evil, but I’m not allowed to tell the world why” is something you can’t defend yourself against.
I don’t remember reading anything suggesting this, could you point out where you read this?
I should have been clear in my comment that it wasn’t about trust in general but just this situation
Of course the Rust core team could be fully transparent and release everything to us outsiders to judge, but somehow I don’t think they will. Looks like they are figuring out how to bury it
That problem would be the same whoever on the core team did whatever shitty thing, so the details are irrelevant. This is about processes and structures for handling incidents, not a single incident.
They also haven’t made a case for why the core team needs to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline.
2) Why should they have to make a case for that? If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?
I don’t think they have to make the case. They can just quit. And I will infer that they had some sort of reason.
Nonetheless, the case wasn’t made.
> If the project as such has found it necessary or desirable to have a moderation team, then why on Earth shouldn't that go for the whole project; why should any one team be exempt? If a case needs to be made, then shouldn't it logically be for why the core team shouldn't need to be subject to the moderation team’s discipline?
That’s an easy argument to make, if you want to talk about general organizational principles. The right choice is what makes the org run better, not what is, through verbal thinking, “logical.” I’m not here to propose either design.
> At best, that's just one member of the core team they've "impugned the reputation of"
I guess my phrasing was a poor compression of what they posted. I think their post says a response from the core team may contain lies.
And if that’s true, well okay then. There isn’t the information necessary for outsiders to discern that, other than the background reputation of anybody who might be involved, and there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.
Of course not. Because it didn't need to be made.
> there isn’t a surface area of facts and reasoning upon which the core team might interact to counter such a statement, so they don’t need to.
They do need to explain why they shouldn't be under the same moderation as everyone else. Any "surface area" (???) one could possibly need to establish that was certainly there in the moderation team's resignation.