The lack of transparency in all these Rust dramas has to end. Accountability means naming names. It’s such an Americanism to hide decision making under a series of guises such as the need for deliberation etc. No, no. This is a programming language, not a geopolitical planning group within a parliament. Even in the setting there are limitations to secrecy.

Name names. Having a shadowy cabal causing grief is significantly worse than the short term pain of having to deal with direct criticism.

And I've run organisations on the basis of radical transparency. It is singlehandedly the best way to stop people accruing unaccountable social power, as all decisions need to be documented and publicised. Everything is public by default, except those things that can be justified to be kept private. And those privately held things must be documented as to what they are, and can be made public at a later date if the situation changes.

You wanna stop sociopaths? This is how you stop sociopaths. Contentious issues are less contentious when the outcomes are to be publicly documented and the decision making process is publicly documented.

It doesn't make decision making harder. It doesn't make deliberation harder. it just makes your decision making transparent, and allows the member body to take action if the leadership is not acting in their interests.

Plot twist: if the membership body has an alternative to witch hunts, they'll usually take it. It's kind of inherent to democracy that there are non-violent actions that can be taken to remove someone you disagree with from their position.

But tolerance of discourse around decisions is absolutely necessary for any meaningful longevity and change. Ivory tower behaviour leads to witchhunts. It's basic shit.

@erk correct. It is standard practice to publish minutes after review.

It is radical practice to publish a draft immediately with a big-ass warning saying these minutes are not approved and should be taken as a draft at best. Invariably this just makes the quality of the minutes significantly better and the confirmation process a matter of convention.

@erk but the essential problem here is a matter of unchecked "executive" power. Decision-making power outside the procedure of a meeting has to be delegated with specific rules; and it has to be delegated by the managing board itself, not just taken upon oneself as a power they can use.

@piecritic I just hope that there were honest private apologies and serious repercussions. I'm not sure about the need for public ostracism though. This might end up in death threats. Look at reddit and other pages, people live for that shit. Also to be clear I'm shocked by the situation and can't imagine JeanHeyd's feelings now...

@flakm yeah, nah. Being a public figure is being a public figure.

We can't just not have appropriate and correct things because fuckwits exist. We have given up enough already because fuckwits exist.

@piecritic wouldn't it just introduce a culture of throwing people from the cliff without giving them a chance to fix their mistakes.

@flakm no. For literally all the other reasons i already enumerated. This isn’t a real problem outside programming land. Other ngos don’t have such drama (i simplify but it’s significantly less often and dealt with quickly). There’s a reason for this.

@piecritic I understand the mob mentality and everything but what would you do with this name? It's a shitty behavior but honestly what's the plan here?

@flakm there seems to be an assumption that the mere naming of an actor in a situation is like, the end. It forces them to actually make a statement. Do shitty things, lose positions of power.

@piecritic I don't think they hide their opinions. And it's not like it's a first time shit like this or worse happens. Humans being humans I guess. I agree with your sentiment. I wish for the same outcome. I just hope that there will be more graceful way of punishing this behavior then publicly outing them by someone good who has to carry this decision later on.