wubalubadubdub

That article you linked is pretty biased. Having said that, you cannot imply that there was a conspiracy to stop JeanHeyd's work in the rust leadership, and then say that I'm claiming sabotage.

> The problem is, this isn't "drama in the Rust community", this is repeated gross incompetence and malevolence spanning years from the very top of Rust leadership.

There you are again ascribing motivations you don't know to the rust leadership.

On the topic of having a keynote downgraded, this happens all the time. Speakers also get disinvited. What is atypical here, is having a personal army to relentless harass others online, force people to resign, etc.

A talk got downgraded. He wasn't disinvited. His honour wasn't disabused. Only a person with an insanely inflated ego would go on to write some many blog posts about it, demanding the heads of others.

I'm not walking back. Let's go back to what I said:

------------------

> The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits.

You actually don't know that. JeanHeyd said so, and you accepted. But this only confirms to my point. JeanHeid was given a grant to work on a language feature. Then he was also offered a keynote, which later got downgraded to a normal talk. It wasn't even pulled out. Following that JeanHeid threw a public hissy fit, and accused several people of acting in way that was hurtful, which was followed by a public online mob.

They hired him to be a consultant. They might not be very happy with the direction his work was taking, but even that would be his job to reach out and persuade others as a hired consultant, rather than assume bad faith.

You have just parroted JeinHeyd here, and turned that into some grand conspiracy by some illuminati inner circle to reject his work without merit. Never you question how well JeanHeyd worked, how well he communicated in delivering something he was paid to do. Because that's all JeanHeid knows how to do: to claim his work has been rejected without merit, rather than working with others and acquiescing to disagreement. They still offered him a slot for talk line up. They never told him to stop his work. Those are the facts so far.

> this RustConf fiasco is certainly not an instance of that.

It absolutely is, and as time goes by, more and more people are gonna realise that's the case. There is already in fact a growing number of voices in social media that are seeing through this charade.

------------

Now, if you will engage with what I'm saying above.

What precipitated this debacle? A perceived slight once JeanHeyd had a talk downgraded.

In which way JeanHeyd's sensitivity to criticism had a role on this whole debacle? Once he started an online mob over this, he went to assume that there were meritless objections to his work. He claims that nobody ever reached out to him about those objections. Did they fire him? No. Was he told to stop his work? No. It is more on him to deliver the work he was hired to, and find out what objections there might be, but it isn't even clear there any objections to work.

The fact is that JeanHeyd quit without properly ascertaining what technical objections people might have over his work, only because his talk got downgraded, and then went on to claim that nobody reached out to him, so therefore any objections to his work were meritless. That's how he has put it.

JeanHead then went on further implying that those people had criticisms of his work that were grounded on bigotry, and racism.

You did imply that there was sabotage of his work without merit, when you said that that the leadership were opposing his work, and the direction it was taking. That is not really known. By the post linked today, it is entirely possible there were merely objections about this being a keynote and nothing beyond that.

Here's David explaining why he thought that talk shouldn't be a keynote:

> I expressed forceful skepticism that the compile-time introspection work, which I had been passively following with great interest, would achieve a state that would be suitable for a RustConf keynote in time for 2023 RustConf, for lack of adequate lang team iteration (neither for the Rust Foundation grant selection, nor conference presentation) to land well with the RustConf audience.

Here is JeanHeyd claiming this is a meritless objection, and in fact merely revealing how much a big ego he has:

> Imagine putting blood sweat and tears into your event and it's just casually dismissed as a "tier 2". You know, the place where things that aren't ready like my "not supposed to be a keynote" goes.

Here's JeanHeyd claiming this is what "his is the best they could put together", implying there's no truth to David's explanation, and therefore saying that it is meritless.

> The rest of it, is of course, also bullshit. Trying to conflate Yoshua's struggles as a reason to paint over my work entirely and make it seem like it wasn't ready to present is a personal shortsight of his, and him projecting his inadequacy on me is absolutely bonkers. This is the best they could put together after 3 months of this absolute nonsense?

I feel you could have got my point on my previous comment.

> The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits.

Here you are doing just that. You don't have evidence for this claim. All that happened was that his talk got downgraded. That's it.

Is there a certain quota I have to have to comment on a post? Or are you just to poison the well, by going over my comment history?

> Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying

I'm glad you realise that.

I have through this discussion asserted that JeanHeid started this drama over a perceived slight for having his talk downgraded. I have separately mentioned that JeanHeyd is a person who has issue taking criticism, but I have not claimed in this thread that this rust debacle was precipitated by this trait of his.

I did provide enough reasoning above for all this, but you again ignored, and didn't address any of it.

You have claimed that people were sabotaging his work. The onus of the evidence is on you. All public statements we've seen are that there might have been concerns, but before these concerns were discussed, JeanHeyd went full nuclear mode over his talk getting downgraded.

> going scorched earth on others for technical criticism

I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed.

In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying.

JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled.

> Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do

You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence?

Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.