While your timeline is mostly correct, I do think it's important to note the degree to which the harassment escalated. It wasn't just an uncomfortable public discussion, he was harassed relentlessly and personally in private messages as well. It spilled over.
You're right, it comes with the territory, but I think it's a little more justified than just a temper tantrum. He wanted the abuse to stop, I think that's reasonable regardless of his role in the origin. That might be your point, though - if you can't hack it, you shouldn't.
I do think maybe "a week off" might have been a viable option... but he's a volunteer with (ostensibly) better things to spend this energy on.
It wasn't just an uncomfortable public discussion, he was harassed relentlessly and personally in private messages as well. It spilled over.
I figured it was something to that degree.
To be clear, I don't think it's altogether unjustified to resign from the project. It was the other two aspects of his response that lead me to classify this as a temper tantrum, not just the abandonment of a toxic situation:
(1) He removed his code. That is never done. The normal response, even in extreme cases such as this, is to resign as the project manager and mark the repository as unmaintained. If someone else wanted to take over Actix-Web, they'd be able to. Instead, he's "taken his marbles and gone home," thereby punishing everyone who has tried to be nice, assist with the project, and generally support the library.
(2) He quit open source altogether. According to his GitHub profile, Rust is not the only community he's involved in, and he cited no issues with those other non-Rust projects and organizations. If he were simply quitting a toxic situation, he'd step down from Actix-Web, and possibly even decide that Rust is not a worthwhile time investment for him; that does not mean he would therefore never participate in any open source project again. Psychologically, that would suggest to me that his reasons for quitting were, again, not rooted primarily in the torch-and-pitchfork mob, so much as in the risk of criticism that he just never learned to handle in any form. (The rejected PRs and dismissal of prior, constructive feedback point to that.)
So, how should he have responded, then?
I like your suggestion first: take time off. Step back. Don't make decisions based on strong emotional reactions. Let the seething angry mob calm down (potentially), and then reassess the situation. That might take a week, a few weeks, even a few months. But don't quit right off.
If the situation is untenable — and perhaps the Rust community is not a good fit for him — then step down from Actix-Web. Announce resignation from the project. Mark the project as unmaintained on the README.
Conventionally, when a sole maintainer steps down from project with an established user base, they outline a process by which someone else can petition to take over. Perhaps, in this case, the ideal candidate would be someone who understands the problems with unsafe but also has a history of supporting the project. Regardless of how this is done, the end result is the same: transferring ownership of the repository to the new maintainer. It allows the original maintainer to wash their hands of the project and move on to better things.
Evaluate oneself. The worst thing we can do in life is to assume the problem is always everyone else. Linus Torvalds, for example, had to recognize that some of the problems in the Linux community originated from his own unhealthy ways of dealing with things, and sought out qualified help on that front. Similarly, Guido van Rossum (apparently) recognized that he could not balance his vision for Python with that of the community, and that it would benefit everyone else to step down as BDFL and only be one of the opinions in decision making, instead of the voice.
Don't. Give. Up. After giving oneself time to cool down, one should explore and find a facet of open source that is a good fit. Learn from the mistakes of the past, and then move on. Maybe the person won't spend as much time on open source in the future, but they shouldn't defenestrate the whole thing.
I don't say any of this lightly. I've dealt with harassment, some of it quite serious, and a large part (retrospectively) entirely unwarranted. I've had to quit communities and projects. I've analyzed my own behavior, and tried to learn what I could from each situation.
We can't control how people treat us. We can only control how we choose to respond.
The other interesting component to this saga is the language barrier. There's no way to know, but I'm curious how much misconstrued tone and intent on both sides of the conversation contributed to how bad it got.
While your timeline is mostly correct, I do think it's important to note the degree to which the harassment escalated. It wasn't just an uncomfortable public discussion, he was harassed relentlessly and personally in private messages as well. It spilled over.
You're right, it comes with the territory, but I think it's a little more justified than just a temper tantrum. He wanted the abuse to stop, I think that's reasonable regardless of his role in the origin. That might be your point, though - if you can't hack it, you shouldn't.
I do think maybe "a week off" might have been a viable option... but he's a volunteer with (ostensibly) better things to spend this energy on.
I figured it was something to that degree.
To be clear, I don't think it's altogether unjustified to resign from the project. It was the other two aspects of his response that lead me to classify this as a temper tantrum, not just the abandonment of a toxic situation:
(1) He removed his code. That is never done. The normal response, even in extreme cases such as this, is to resign as the project manager and mark the repository as unmaintained. If someone else wanted to take over Actix-Web, they'd be able to. Instead, he's "taken his marbles and gone home," thereby punishing everyone who has tried to be nice, assist with the project, and generally support the library.
(2) He quit open source altogether. According to his GitHub profile, Rust is not the only community he's involved in, and he cited no issues with those other non-Rust projects and organizations. If he were simply quitting a toxic situation, he'd step down from Actix-Web, and possibly even decide that Rust is not a worthwhile time investment for him; that does not mean he would therefore never participate in any open source project again. Psychologically, that would suggest to me that his reasons for quitting were, again, not rooted primarily in the torch-and-pitchfork mob, so much as in the risk of criticism that he just never learned to handle in any form. (The rejected PRs and dismissal of prior, constructive feedback point to that.)
So, how should he have responded, then?
I like your suggestion first: take time off. Step back. Don't make decisions based on strong emotional reactions. Let the seething angry mob calm down (potentially), and then reassess the situation. That might take a week, a few weeks, even a few months. But don't quit right off.
If the situation is untenable — and perhaps the Rust community is not a good fit for him — then step down from Actix-Web. Announce resignation from the project. Mark the project as unmaintained on the
README.Conventionally, when a sole maintainer steps down from project with an established user base, they outline a process by which someone else can petition to take over. Perhaps, in this case, the ideal candidate would be someone who understands the problems with
unsafebut also has a history of supporting the project. Regardless of how this is done, the end result is the same: transferring ownership of the repository to the new maintainer. It allows the original maintainer to wash their hands of the project and move on to better things.Evaluate oneself. The worst thing we can do in life is to assume the problem is always everyone else. Linus Torvalds, for example, had to recognize that some of the problems in the Linux community originated from his own unhealthy ways of dealing with things, and sought out qualified help on that front. Similarly, Guido van Rossum (apparently) recognized that he could not balance his vision for Python with that of the community, and that it would benefit everyone else to step down as BDFL and only be one of the opinions in decision making, instead of the voice.
Don't. Give. Up. After giving oneself time to cool down, one should explore and find a facet of open source that is a good fit. Learn from the mistakes of the past, and then move on. Maybe the person won't spend as much time on open source in the future, but they shouldn't defenestrate the whole thing.
I don't say any of this lightly. I've dealt with harassment, some of it quite serious, and a large part (retrospectively) entirely unwarranted. I've had to quit communities and projects. I've analyzed my own behavior, and tried to learn what I could from each situation.
We can't control how people treat us. We can only control how we choose to respond.
The other interesting component to this saga is the language barrier. There's no way to know, but I'm curious how much misconstrued tone and intent on both sides of the conversation contributed to how bad it got.
Altogether valid.