It's what people think the "RESF" does, but as is consistently mentioned whenever it is brought up, there seems to be more people replying to any comment about Rust with complaints of "RESF" (even if the original comment is just "trying to raise some awareness", etc.) than people actually proposing rewriting anything/everything in Rust.

In any case, I think being a core developer on something means a much higher bar for accuracy/relevance/general public behaviour when discussing it and its competitors: everything one says about the project is a semi-official representation of it. Certainly the Rust core developers try to be careful about conveying an accurate picture of costs as well as benefits when answering questions or correcting misconceptions[1]. That is certainly something I found weighed on my mind a lot when I was on the Rust teams: anything I said about it could become part of "the Rust project" (as an idea people have) itself.

[1]: One extra point is that, IME, this is often how Rust team members interact with social media: they won't be the first person to bring up Rust in a thread. Of course, it's fair to say that Rust has a bigger mindshare and more people outside the project team members will bring it up/compare to it than Nim, but one possible alternative approach to awareness is more whole threads (i.e. submitted articles) about Nim rather than just comments within threads about other technologies.

(To be clear, this is just a reply to the parent comment, I'm not trying to say the original Nim comment was "NESF"-ish or "RiiN".)