team VS unsafe-code-guidelines

It's just as true today, though. When the Rust mod team resigned en masse in 2021, it was announced by a programmer (the author of ripgrep) [0], and the conflict was with the core team (also programmers). A supermajority of their contributors to open source projects are programmers, so most famous meltdowns are going to be conflicts between programmers, not between programmers and the tiny minority of non-technical contributors.

I'm still waiting for anyone to give an example of an open source project meltdown that was triggered by non-technical contributors.

[0] https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671

the mods publicly outlined the governance issue, while keeping the moderation issue private (https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671)

Here's another list: https://github.com/rust-lang/team//blob/d4c071b86c33683845919cf27eabf33e15fb6784/teams/interim-leadership-chat.toml

they linked their (user)names:

https://github.com/rust-lang/team/blob/2cea9916903fffafbfae6...

You can also check rust-lang/team repo, where shows more than 400+ people have worked on the Rust Project as official members. And on thanks.rust-lang.org, it shows that 300+ people have been involved in each recent release. I believe the number of active contributors may be more than 100+.

Right, but this type of drama isn't new in the community. A while back the whole mod team resigned because they were not able to hold the core team accountable. In fact I remember it being said that the Core Team placing themselves unaccountable to anyone but themselves. So I don't think I'm being dramatic at all here.

If that's too onerous, you can also look at the list of directors and observe that there are people titled "Project Director" who you can look up on https://github.com/rust-lang/team and observe that they have in fact been selected from the project teams.

You're more than welcome to set the narrative straight. The infighting among Rust maintainers is based partially on your resignation note where you said the Core Team was "unaccountable" https://github.com/rust-lang/team/pull/671 and implied that they were untrustworthy. The same people that once went around starting language wars, like calling Zig a "massive step backward" for the industry https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32783244.

I'm just an outsider observer, who's been watching the sparks fly. It's been interesting as well to watch how quickly memories changes when positions are dangled. If there's ever an investigative report on the tribulations of Rust, they can also dig into the allegations of nepotism around one maintainer and his girlfriend on the project, vis-a-vis Amazon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28633113.

Useful context on the Rust side is this issue [1]. It sounds like some of the author's concerns are addressed already.

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/4...

Is this captured by one of the known soundness conflicts? If not then should consider adding it to the list.

There are some competing proposals for different memory models. Stacked borrows is the current proposal, but there are more work in the approproate WG.

Thank you /u/RalfJung for bringing formal methods to Rust, both through models like Stacked Borrows, by developing miri, and by working on unsafe-code-guidelines which aims to specify exactly what is and isn't allowed in unsafe code (surprisingly, it's an open question as 2023!)

You could imagine some way to make this safe for example automatically convert &'short &'long mut T to &'short &'short T, but it's non-trivial to prove they are safe at all, not to mention ensuring this is correctly implemented in the compiler. If you're interested there's also a discussion on whether the opposite (& & T to & &mut T) is sound here.

Agreed! MIRI is so good, it still feels like magic to me. It also comforts me that the Rust team takes improving unsafe semantics seriously, with the past Unsafe Code Guidelines WG and today's operational semantics team (t-opsem).

I think there are some aspects of this rule that are still undecided. See for example:

- https://github.com/rust-lang/unsafe-code-guidelines/issues/8...

- https://github.com/rust-lang/miri/issues/2732

C is much better specified than unsafe Rust. Some things are just not worked out yet in Rust. This may sometimes even bite very experienced devs, such as this issue with Box's aliasing semantics, which tripped up the author of left-right.