I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1].
Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
for them to do what?
> I feared this would happen months ago
feared what would happen?
> Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
what has come true?
In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be valid concerns, but if you only allude to them without ever stating them, nobody will know!
We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.
No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything.
>I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets
Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is).
If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.
> I don't understand why Google, Microsoft and AWS et. al are on a board of this new foundation.
> It is the structure that I am concerned about. Again, I'd rather have them just sponsor Rust, why wasn't a gold or platinum sponsorship like structure considered without placing them on the board of directors.
> We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust.
And even steve is concerned about the structure himself, if you have bothered to read the tweets.
Maybe you should actually read my comment and the links before replying.
What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?
Where did I say "big company bad"?, I'm not against them sponsoring a project, they shouldn't get the opportunity to buy a board seat, which is what Rust's structure allows. Hence why, it's appearing that Rust isn't being led by the community.
Before you continue to gaslight me again, you can have companies (big ones) that sponsor a project/foundation and not be given a board seat.
"Sure this company has showed evil in the past, but what specific data do you have to show that they will be evil again?"
"Sure this structure allows the company to have a lot of power, but what specifically makes you think they will abuse it?"
This kind of specious reasoning is far too common in the corporate world to remove resistance to any unpopular sentiments. There comes a point where you really have to trust your gut on something and go with it even if you cannot logically justify it in the moment. That's what separates visionaries from tacticians.
How so? Would you like to explain how you came to this conclusion?