I've been reading/listening to a bunch of media about burnout in cooperative software today. This is the best I've come across so far. I really like the idea of having designated roles that rotate between people. However that assumes there are enough people there to rotate in the first place. I also really appreciate the point about how most of the content about burnout in cooperative software talks about individual responses rather than collective organization.

This idea of nonpartisan facilitators in contentious technical discussions is really interesting.

"Rust does not seek to be a language for everyone, but the audiences and use cases it does target are nevertheless diverse. And pluralism happens at the level of community and goals, not at the level of the actual design. We don’t embrace “there’s more than one way to do it” as a goal for our designs, nor do we “take the average” between opposed priorities (and please no one). Ultimately, we have to make hard decisions."

Hot take: The Rust project figuring out how to massively scale nonhierarchical, consensus-based cooperative software development is the most important thing happening in computing right now.

"The idea that discussions can be “purely technical”, i.e. devoid of emotional content, is bogus. If we care at any level about what we’re discussing, then our emotions are going to play a role, and more likely than not, they will spill over onto the thread."

"A code of conduct is not enough. Being “nice” is not enough. We need to take a leap of faith and embrace humility and trust in our discussions. It is my strong belief that doing so will lead to strictly better ideas and decisions, enabling us to find positive-sum outcomes. But I also think it’s vital for keeping our plural community whole and inclusive."

"Our willingness to dig deep and long to find new insights and more nuanced designs is a big part of what’s made Rust the language it is, and why I love working on it so much. Sometimes talking something “to death” is exactly what’s needed to uncover the right set of ideas."

"[Feelings from lived experiences] should not be hidden away, but part of the emotional labor of the RFC process is to recognizing such feelings as emerging from our personal experience, and working introspectively to dig out the actual constraints that represents ... come to the thread not with a flat “I am against this RFC” but rather “I’m concerned about refactoring workflows; here’s what my personal one looks like…”"

@be maybe not the "most" important thing, but it's a very important example to study regardless of where you stand on it

@be A side comment, I was really surprised to read the following.

> I can’t just say “please don’t do that”, because people won’t listen. I say “On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle”, and I mean it.

I consider myself a direct person with great difficulty understanding subtle communication.
I never thought of „please don’t do that“ as subtle, I’d call it direct. Subtle would be if you ask for an opinion and there is no reply or the reply „hmmff don’t know“.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.