Rust for Linux maintainer steps down in frustration with 'nontechnical nonsense'

> "When I started on this project, I fully expected we would get pushback on technical grounds and I was willing to work through that under the assumption that eventually we would find consensus," explained Filho.

Managing change, is as much, if not more, nontechnical as it is technical. Technical discussions are easy, but the real difficulties will be non-technical pushback.

So leading this is a leadership and political role.

It is technical if maintainers need to maintain code written in a language they are not familiar with

If you are not happy, you fork the kernel

Rust developers find out some additional memory safety brings trade-offs many c developers find unacceptable?

On the one hand, I can see how rewriting parts of the kernel in a memory-safe language would be helpful. On the other hand, are we going to rewrite the kernel with every new language that comes out?