►
Description
RustConf 2018 - Opening Keynote by Aaron Turon, Ashley Williams & Niko Matsakis
Aaron, Ashley, and Niko will deliver an update on the state of all things Rust. You don't want to miss it!
A
A
I'm
also
super
pleased
after
this
is
the
fourth
Russ
conference
that
we've
held
starting
with
Russ
camp,
and
this
is
the
first
time
that
we
aren't
in
roundtables,
because
there
are
too
many
of
you
so
really
excited
about
the
conference
today,
and
so
I
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
one
of
the
major
focuses
of
this
year,
which
has
been
rust,
2018
a
new
edition
of
rust.
So
if
you've
been
paying
attention
to
rust
at
all,
you
probably
will
have
heard
of
this.
It's
basically
the
culmination
of
those
last
four
years
of
work.
A
You
know,
since
rust,
1.0
came
out
right,
so
there's
a
there's,
a
huge
list
of
features
connected
with
rust,
2018.
Obviously
we
don't
have
time
to
talk
about
all
of
them
in
depth,
but
I
did
want
us.
You
know
start
talking
through
some
of
them.
So
there's
you
know,
features
like
raw
identifiers,
x',
there's
some
clarity.
B
A
A
question
mark
operator
which
you
can
now
use
in
the
main
function
you
can
control
panics
in
rust.
2018
we've
been
working
on
async/await,
it's
not
actually
gonna
ship
in
rust,
2080,
unfortunately,
but
I'ms
the
brakes
yeah.
There's
a
we've
made
some
improvements
to
the
trait
system.
You
might
have
heard
about
with
infiltrate
and
dine
trade.
There's
a
there's
operator
equals
yeah.
A
B
B
C
A
C
Idea
of
genealogy
and
I
think
it
has
a
lot
to
do
with
the
addition,
and
so
a
genealogy
often
attempts
to
look
beyond
the
discourse
in
question
towards
the
conditions
of
it's
possibility
and
so
I've
gotten
these
ideas
by
reading
these
books.
So
the
first
one
obviously
is
Nietzsche's
genealogy
of
morals,
followed
closely
by
Hegel's
phenomenology
of
spirit.
So.
B
There's
investigations
one
to
right,
I,
think
I,
think
Aaron
I
mean
okay,
because
a
little
maybe
a
little
lost,
but
the
original
idea
was
pretty
good.
We
should
talk
about
rust,
but
we
can
talk
about
rust
and
philosophy
right.
So
we
could
talk
about
the
2018
edition,
but
not
about
the
edition
itself,
but
about
what
made
it
possible.
What
do
you
think
mm-hmm,
pretty
good
I,
think
it's
good.
It's
good
right!
Good.
B
A
They
like
it,
they
like
it,
that's
true,
alright,
I'll,
give
it
a
shot.
So
if
we're
gonna
talk
philosophy,
obviously
the
first
question
is
what
even
is
rust.
So
at
least
traditionally
we
talk
about
rust,
being
a
systems
language
and
how
does
a
systems
language
get
created?
Well,
we
have
a
whole
team
full
of
systems.
Programmers
yeah.
C
But
like
systems,
programmers
in
like
a
way
that
you're
not
imagining
I,
think
fright
like
systems,
programmers
cuz
open-source
is
an
intricate
system
of
people.
This
is
a
talk
about
people,
systems
and
I
mean
like
you
just
get
this
right,
like
you
know
that
joke
about
the
hardest
problem
in
computer
science
right.
B
People
can
be
a
little
frustrating,
but
let's
not
forget
we're
talking
about
what
made
the
rush
2018
edition
possible
and
it's
all
of
these
people
here
is
all
of
those
people
who
are
not
here,
it's
all
of
us
in
the
Russ
community,
working
together
right.
So
this
is
what
our
talk
is:
gonna,
be
about
and
I
think
we're
yeah
we're
gonna
start
the
real
talk
now,
so
welcome
to
our
talk
about
people
systems,
I'm,
Niko,
misaki's,
I'm,
Erin
and
I'm.
B
I'm
gonna
kick
it
off
by
talking
about
unleashing
latent
energy,
meaning.
Basically,
how
can
we
bring
together
all
the
and
hope
to
organize
and
channel
all
the
people
who
are
excited
about
rust
and
make
things
happen
in
rust,
right
and
in
open
source?
More
generally.
So,
if
we
look
back
to
when
rust
first
started,
it's
been
an
open
source
project
from
the
beginning.
Right,
but
initially
we
didn't
have
kind
of
a
formal
governance
structure.
B
We
had
decisions
being
made
by
like
graden
and
other
people
who
were
involved,
but
there
wasn't
and
there
were
people
contributing
PRS
and
things,
but
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
structure
to
it
and
that
we
changed
that
around
1.0
when
we
brought
in
the
rust
teams
and
the
goal
here
was
to
fold
first
off.
We
had
this
problem
that
there
was
just
a
small
set
of
people
making
all
the
decisions
and
it
was
kind
of
overwhelming,
and
there
was
a
blocker
like
we
couldn't
make
enough
progress.
B
B
B
In
the
last
year,
especially,
you
can
see,
there's
been
a
steady
climb
and
the
number
of
people
involved
in
Rus
governance
structure
and
that's
not
an
accident.
That's
the
result
of
sort
of
deliberate
engineering,
of
trying
to
grow
this
structure
and
make
space
and
create
the
opportunities
for
people
to
step
in
right
and
I
want
to
tell
you
a
story
about
that,
and
this
story
has
to
do
with
Alex
Alex.
Are
you
here
somewhere
yeah?
B
So
if
you,
if
you'd,
come
and
said
to
me,
maybe
a
year
ago,
you
know,
can
you
point
me
at
the
team?
That's
responsible
for
rusts
release
process.
I
would
say
yeah,
there's
Alex
right
over
there,
because
he,
in
addition
to
all
of
his
other
duties,
doing
lots
and
lots
of
things.
He
was
maintaining
basically
full-time
the
infrastructure,
ensuring
the
releases
get
out
and
it
sounds
pretty.
Cool
alex
is
cool,
but
it's
also
kind
of
overwhelming
right
like
he.
B
This
is
too
much
for
one
person
to
do
and,
and
in
a
result
they
couldn't
get
all
the
things
done
and
we
wanted
to
improve
the
situation
and
so
now,
if
we
look
now
at
what
what
we
have,
we
have
a
team
that
manages
the
release
process
led
by
mark
simulacrum.
We
have
a
separate
team
managing
the
infrastructure
led
by
Aidan
Hopson
sayers,
and
in
addition
to
that,
we
have
this
kind
of
ever
watching
team
of
bots
that
are
growing
and
growing
at
a
fast
pace,
and
where
did
these
bots
come
from?
Well?
B
The
answer
is
these
bots
came
from
those
two
teams
right,
because
now
that
we
have
actual
teams
managing
this
process,
they
have
enough
time
to
do
things
like
automate
the
processes
and
make
them
better
and
not
just
always
be
just-in-time.
Getting
everything
done
right
and
you
can
see
that
also
looking
at
like
the
number
of
polar
crisis,
this
is
a
graph
of
our
pole,
request
status,
showing
different
how
many
pull
requests
and
how
what
state
they're
in-
and
you
can
see.
B
First
of
all
that
we
have
a
graph,
that's
also
something
that
teams
managed
to
pull
together
and,
secondly,
that
we're
fielding
twice
as
many
pull
requests
as
we
were,
so
so
this
stuff
works.
But
how
did
this
happen?
How
do
we
go
from
from
from
Alex
to
two
teams,
neither
of
which
alex
is
leading
by
the
way
right,
also
very
cool,
so
the
first
there's
a
couple
of
steps
involved
right
and
the
first
one,
maybe
the
most
obvious
one
is
you
need
to
ask
for
help?
You
need
to
recognize
kind
of
that.
B
This
is
something
that
people
will
help
with
and
that's
not
always
obvious,
like
I
think
that
there
were
a
lot
of
doubts
about
whether,
for
example,
release
management
was
something
that
you
could
sort
of
open.
You
can
handle
in
an
open
source
fashion.
All
right,
not
everyone
believed
that,
and
so
asking
can
take
a
lot
of
forms.
This
was
one
of
the
ways
that
we
asked
in
this
case,
Erin
posted
this
comment,
basically
saying
hey.
If
you'd
like
to
help,
let
me
know
right:
here's
a
bunch
of
people
see
seed,
but
it's
not.
B
It
turns
out.
It's
more
than
just
asking
right,
there's
a
right
way
and
a
wrong
way
to
ask
if
that
was
the
only
thing
that
Erin
had
done.
I
think
it
would
still
have
Alex
managing
everything
else
right,
but
what
what
came
before?
That
was
a
lot
of
groundwork,
basically
laying
out
figuring
out
what
things
were
blocking
people
from
participating
now,
and
could
we
correct
those
and
giving
and
figuring
out
what
would
be
the
first
few
steps
that
a
nascent
team
can
take
I?
B
A
C
A
Are
just
kind
of
floating
around
they?
Don't
there's
nothing
to
sort
of
attach
themselves
to
you
right.
So
you
you
have
to
build
a
little
bit
of
structure,
but
leave
enough
freedom
for
people
to
find
their
place
in
it
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
for
the
infrastructure
team
to
kick
it
off
that
helped.
A
lot
was
right
off
the
bat.
We
had
a
task
that
we
could
all
work
together
on
and
sort
of
gel
as
a
team.
It
wasn't
the
most
important
task
in
the
world,
but
it
was.
A
B
Exactly
so,
I
usually
call
this
or
I've
come
to
call
this
sort
of
building
a
skeleton,
and
this
skeleton
can
take
a
lot
of
forms,
but
the
whole
idea
is
you're,
not
constructing
the
whole
thing.
It's
just
enough
of
it
to
see
the
to
see
how
it
fits
together
and
where
the
gaps
are
right.
So
there
might
be
just
instructions
on
a
pole
on
an
issue
kind
of
saying,
not
just
I.
Can
someone
fix
this,
but
here's
a
couple
places
in
the
code?
B
So
the
last
step,
an
important
step
is
don't
forget
to
say
thank
you
and
to
tell
everyone
what
a
great
job
they're
doing,
because
sometimes
we
take
it
a
little
bit
for
granted
that
they
know
how
awesome
we
think
they
are
right,
but
actually
they
may
not.
They
might
like
to
hear
it
and
if
you
do
it
all
together,
I
mean
to
bring
this
back
to
this
awesome
opening
slide.
B
You
know.
Basically,
you
are
able
to
do
a
lot
more
because
you
have
a
whole
bunch
of
people
working
together
than
you
would
have
been
able
to
do
by
yourself,
but
so
so
this
is
kind
of
right
and
so,
like
basically
that
previous
slide,
all
those
things
came
out
from
the
in
period
I,
don't
know
how
many
of
you
remember
the
Imperius
big
first
attempts
at
growing
the
teams
great
and
then
we
have
the
domain
working
groups
focusing
in
different
areas.
B
So
all
of
these
are
examples
of
basically
growing
out
successfully
and
getting
a
lot
more
done.
But
isn't
it's
not
100%
easy
right?
There's
there's
a
there's
another
side
to
this,
and
now
it's
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
talk
about
in
this
part.
Is
that
there's
like
this,
some
kind
of
tension
coming
between
succeeding
at
growing
out
the
team
and
losing
some
of
what
you
had
before
right.
B
So
so
one
part
of
it
is
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
run
these
teams,
and
and
and
do
that,
it's
basically,
but
whereas
before
you
were
writing
code,
let's
say
if
you're
me
and
now
you're
kind
of
organizing
you
are
doing
some
of
it,
but
leaving
the
best
bits
and
you're
doing
a
lot
of
other
things.
That,
maybe
is
not
what
you
originally
had
in
mind.
B
What
you
originally
signed
up
for
right,
it's
very
rewarding
because
you're
seeing
a
lot
of
things
get
done,
but
it's
not
the
same
work
anymore
and
one
of
the
challenges
that
we
have
found
is.
It
can
be
sometimes
hard,
for
example,
to
find
people
who
have
the
time
and
willingness
to
do
this
on
a
volunteer
basis.
It
might
be
that
they
like
doing
it,
but
they
don't
have
time
because
it
takes
a
lot
of
time.
B
It
might
be
that
they
don't
like
doing
it
that
much
orally,
so
they
don't
do
it
when
they
have
their
free
time
right.
These
two
things
and
that's
an
interesting
challenge,
I
think
to
try
to
figure
out
how
we
can
bridge
that,
but
there's
something
else
to
that's
a
little
more
subtle
which
is
initially
when
it
was
just
you
running
your
project
or
doing
your
thing.
You
were
managing
all
the
decisions
and,
yes,
it
was
overwhelming,
but
also
it
was
kind
of
nice
right.
B
Everybody
was
recognizing
who
made
this
happen,
and
now
you
have
these
other
people
coming
in
they're
helping,
but
it
feels
a
little
bit
like
this
they're
like
taking
some
of
that
away
from
you.
You
know-
and
you
may
find
yourself
starting
to
do
things-
that
intentionally
you're
not
kind
of
getting
their
way
right.
You're,
like
I'm,
just
trying
to
help
you.
There
are
some
tips.
Maybe
you
should
write
it.
B
So
that's
anyway,
so
you
so
this
is
a
quote
from
from
Aaron's
favorite
book
pretty
much,
but
it
kind
of
gets
a
kiss
right.
They
do
a
lot
of
times
the
best
way
or
at
some
point
there
comes
a
time
when
the
best
thing
is
to
allow
other
people
to
take
the
project
and
and
sort
of
take
ownership
and
take
it
in
directions
that
maybe
you
didn't
originally
intend
or
or
know
about
so
this
has
come
up
also
in
the
in
the
rust.
This
is
a
quote:
it's
actually
not
a
quote.
B
B
But
there's
also
sometimes
the
end
result
is
the
task
doesn't
get
done
and
it
would
have
gotten
done
and
maybe
gotten
done
in
a
way
you
didn't
expect
in
a
good
way.
So
I
actually
have
no
idea
what
this
thing
is
about,
but
this
picture
was
too
good
to
cut.
But
this
is
the
like
the
feeling,
these
sort
of
tensions
they
come
out
right.
B
All
right,
that's
partly
I-
didn't
want
to
go
there.
So
these
you
can
sort
of
summarize
this
I
think
all
these
tensions
I'm
talking
about
that
there's
these
two
impulses,
both
of
which
are
good
and
both
of
which
are
necessary
to
do
the
work
that
needs
to
be
done
yourself
but
or
to
support
other
people
doing
the
work
and,
and
they
kind
of
work
together,
but
they
also
pull
against
right
and
it
plays
out
so
there's
the
control
like
I
was
talking
about.
B
I
have
an
example
of
this:
it's
like
a
road,
the
small
one,
but
from
early
on
we
had
we
wanted
to
add
the
DRF
trait
that
you're,
probably
familiar
with
it.
Lets
you
overload
the
ref
and
we
had
this
idea
of
how
to
do
it
and
we
thought
we'd
implemented.
I,
think
I
thought
I
would
implement
it,
probably
and
so,
and
then
Eddie
B
came
along,
and
this
was
when
he
was
quite
new
appeared
with
the
PR
and
first
I
was
like.
B
Who
is
this
writing
this
big
PR
and
then
I
started
reading
it
and
it's
not
done
the
way
I
would
do
it.
Actually,
it's
done
better
than
I
would
do
it.
Why
didn't
I?
Think
of
that,
and
so
that
was
kind
of
the
enjoying
the
ride.
Part
right
as
I
realized
it's
good.
This
is
awesome.
Now
we
have
DRF
but
and
there's
also
sometimes
just
a
really
practical
tension
that
arises
of
like
we
need
to
meet
a
deadline.
B
The
fastest
way
is,
if
you
know
how
to
do
it,
you
can
do
it
faster,
but
if
you
spend
the
time
to
teach
other
people,
then
of
course
that
increases
your
overall
throughput.
How
do
you
balance
those
these
things
can
be
really
tricky.
There's
no
easy
answer,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
that
both
sides
are
positive.
If
right,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
doing
it
and
there's
also
definitely
nothing
wrong
with
helping
others
to
do
it,
so
you
have
to
work
them
both.
A
I'm
gonna
talk
about
itching,
get
ready,
yeah,
so
there's
a
sort
of
old-school,
notion
and
open
source
that
you
know
open
source
projects
essentially
operate
in
this
very
you
know,
anarchic
way
where
everybody's
got
their
own
personal
motivations,
their
own
problems.
They
want
to
solve
and
they're
basically
showing
up
to
scratch
their
own
itch
and
somehow
this
all
comes
together
into
a
coherent
project
and
we've
definitely
had
experiences
along
these
lines
in
rust,
so
burnt
sushi
is
one
of
one
of
my
favorite
restorations
is
is
Andrew
here.
A
All
my
favorite,
but
I
think
I,
think
burnt.
Sushi
is
really
just
you
know,
writes
these
exemplary
libraries
he's
been
an
incredible
force
in
rust,
and
this
pull
request
back
from
2014
was
essentially
his
introduction
to
the
rust
community.
Alright,
so
I,
remember,
I
had
not
been
involved
in
rust.
Very
at
this
point
and
I
just
remember
the
team
being
kind
of
baffled
that
this
guy
showed
up
from
nowhere
with
a
red,
regex
implementation
that
was
super
high
quality
that
we
weren't
really
actively
asking
for
like.
There
was
an
issue
that
said.
A
B
A
Yeah,
so
you
know
sometimes
this
can
work
out
well
right,
so
this
sort
of
it's
scratching
thing
you
can
think
of
it
as
in
the
good
case.
Oh
s,
s,
open-source
software
by
serendipity
right
and
so
in
a
case
like
burnt
sushi.
It's
like
oh
great.
Now
we
have
regular
expressions.
This
is
awesome
right,
but
it
doesn't
always
work
that
way.
So
I
didn't
actually
realize.
Niko
was
going
to
talk
about
Eddie
as
well,
but
he's
another
another
of
my
favorites
you're.
All
my
favorite
Eddie's
been
around
for
a
long
time.
A
So
OSS
by
serendipity
sometimes
works
out.
Well,
sometimes
we
don't
really
know
what's
going
on
right
and
sometimes
it
can
get.
You
know
a
little
catty,
so
the
other
thing
to
notice
about
serendipity,
which
I
think
is
really
important,
is
that
it
really,
if
you're,
trying
to
run
your
project
through
this
kind
of
serendipity
and
personal,
itch
scratching
you're,
selecting
for
a
certain
kind
of
person,
probably
a
person
who
has
a
certain
amount
of
privilege,
a
person
who
feels
comfortable
just
coming
out
of
nowhere
and
saying
I.
A
Did
this
thing
pay
attention
to
me
right,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
people
out
there
who
don't
have
that
comfort
level
or
don't
have
the
privilege
that
would
let
them
do
this
and
if
you
run
your
project,
this
way
you're
missing
out
on
that
huge
pool
of
energy
and
talent.
So
what's
the
alternative?
Well,.
A
But
if
you
asked
graden
about
the
name
rust,
he
will
tell
you
about
fungus,
you
can
google
it
it's.
Actually
quite
beautiful,
so
yeah
I
mean
so
basically
just
giving
all
of
you.
This
shared
fungus
is
totally
the
the
answer
to
this
serendipity
thing
right
and
then
we
can
all
be
sort
of
jumping
in
the
same
way.
Yeah
you
didn't
have
to
go
there.
A
Okay,
so
so
more
seriously
right
the
the
contrast
I
want
to
draw
out
is
you
can
do
open
source
by
serendipity?
That's
the
traditional
model
of
very
decentralized,
individualistic,
yada
yada
or
you
can
do
open
source
on
purpose
there
are.
There
are
a
lot
of
aspects
of
you
know
what
that
looks
like
in
practice,
and
it
connects
back
to
some
of
the
things
that
that
Nika
was
touching.
On
the
you
know,
the
fundamental
idea
is
giving
people
some
structures
to
work
with
so
that
they
know
what
contributions
are
needed.
A
A
We've
used
a
lot
and
the
rest
community,
where
you've
got
some
some
thing
to
do
a
lot
of
different
times
in
a
lot
of
different
places,
and
so
you
can
write
out
instructions
for
how
to
do
this
thing
and
then
have
a
big
checklist
of
doing
that
thing
for
all
the
things
right,
and
so
in
this
case
this
is
from
Nick
Fitzgerald
on
the
waves
and
working
group,
hey
Nick,
and
it's
basically
like
filling
out
API
bindings
for
the
Dom,
and
this
is
like
catnip
I
mean
every
time.
One
of
these
goes
up.
A
It's
just
like
you
cannot
get
yourself
assigned
to
one
of
these
items
fast
enough.
They
just
get
snapped
up
right
away,
and
so
this
is
a
great
way
to
get
a
bunch
of
people
into
the
process.
You
know
in
a
lightweight
way
make
them
feel
good
about
the
contribution,
and
then
you
can
start
more
actively
mentoring
them
at
the
medium
scale.
We've
talked
a
lot
recently
about
working
groups
and
working
groups
are
sort
of
this
new
frontier
of
rust
teams
right.
A
You
know
in
rust,
we've
implemented
various
visionary
processes
right,
so
we
have
a
road
map
process
each
year.
This
is
we've
talked
about
this
at
each
of
the
previous
rust
comps.
You
know
what
what
is
ahead
for
this
year,
even
the
addition
itself.
The
idea
of
an
addition
is
to
sort
of
lay
out
this
vision,
and
this
is
a
really
key
aspect
of
spreading
that
fungus
right
like
that.
Basically
you're,
saying:
okay,
we're
generally
heading
in
this
direction.
A
B
A
So
the
overall
message
about
all
this
bitching
is
that,
like
motivation
and
and
I
experienced
this
a
lot
as
a
manager,
I,
don't
as
a
manager
I,
don't
tell
people
what
to
do
very
much
and
when
I've
tried
it,
it
doesn't
tend
to
work
and
instead
you
know
I
have
to
get
them
to
want
it
themselves
right.
We
have
to
come
to
some
kind
of
consensus
right,
so
I
was
told
that
I
needed
to
perform
this
gesture
Nikko
said
that
he
was
unwilling
to
but
I'm
going
to
inspire
and
come
on.
B
B
A
A
Right,
so
you
might
think
you
know
it's
all
unicorns
and
rainbows,
but
of
course,
like
real
life
is
a
little
more
complicated
than
that.
So
even
after
we
put
all
of
these
practices
into
place
and
we
had
roadmaps
and
we
had
a
lot
of
clarity
about
the
direction
that
doesn't
stop.
People
from
you
know
coming
up
with
their
own
ideas
and
putting
a
lot
of
work
into
something.
That's
not
on
the
roadmap,
and
this
is
always
a
challenge
for
the
teams.
A
So
this
this
example
from
a
Ruska
meeting
member
ticky
is
something
that
probably
a
lot
of
you
have
seen
in
are
excited
about
constant
generics.
It's
something
that
people
have
been
asking
for
for
a
long
time.
The
team
had
thought
about
it
and
said
not
this
year,
it's
not
on
the
roadmap.
Nevertheless,
taking
really
cared
about
it
and
went
and
wrote
an
RFC
all
right,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
community
support.
A
If
you
see
like
the
emoji
reactions,
everybody's
really
excited
about
this,
and
so
there's
a
conundrum
of
you
know
you
set
out
this
direction.
The
serendipitous
stuff
still
happens.
So
what
do
you
do
and
I
think
we
don't
have
the
perfect
answer
to
this?
We're
still
feeling
it
out.
In
this
particular
case
we
ended
up
helping.
We
ended
up
taking
some
time
to
help
ticky
get
this
RFC
to
the
right
place
and
we
got
it
landed
so
I.
A
You
know,
I
think
it
worked
out
pretty
well
at
the
end,
and
you
know
if
I
were
to
try
to
summarize
this
I
would
say
we
want
to
set
out
a
vision.
We
want
to
prioritize
the
work
that
we
think
is
high-impact,
but
we
still
need
to
leave
some
room
for
serendipity.
That's
still
a
really
important
part
of
doing
open
source,
and
it's
you
know
it's
not
all
one
or
the
other.
A
So
to
sort
of
summarize
the
overall
tension
here
and
in
this
section
of
the
talk
on
the
one
hand,
you
know
we
want
to
build
capacity,
and
sometimes
that
means
letting
people
come
and
just
do
what
they
want
to
do.
But
on
the
other
hand
we
need
to
stay
focused,
and
so
this
is
a
delicate
balance
and
it's
something
we're
continually
working
on
yeah,
very
delicate.
B
C
So
in
many
ways,
it's
often
nice
to
talk
about
things
in
opposition's,
which
hopefully
you've
been
picking
up
on
today,
but
the
thing
that
a
lot
of
people
are
probably
familiar
with
this
is
the
idea
of
a
zero-sum
game,
which
is
this
kind
of
representation
of
a
situation
where
each
participants
gain,
or
you
know,
ability
to
get
something
is
going
to
be
kind
of
balanced
out
by
somebody
losing
something.
The
way
you
can
kind
of
summarize
this
is
your
gain,
is
my
loss
and
so
anytime
somebody
is
winning.
C
This
is
gonna,
be
a
positive
effect
and
the
kumbaya
way
to
say
this
is
the
whole
is
greater
than
some
of
its
parts
and
that's
a
little
saccharine,
but
also
that's
kind
of
really
awesome,
and
it's
something
that
I
think
has
led
to
a
lot
of
rust
successes,
but
while
it
is
something
that
sounds
really
awesome,
this
is
also
an
intense
gamble.
The
idea
that
we
have
a
plural
sum
game
and
that
it's
actually
going
to
work
I
mean
in
theory.
It
looks
like
this
right
like
we
let
our
powers
combined
and
then
together.
C
We
all
come
together
and
we
form
captain
rust,
which
is
I,
guess
a
new
Farris
I'm
gonna
have
to
draw-
and
this
is
ideal
right.
This
is
what
we
want.
We
want
all
these
people
with
incredibly
different
perspectives
coming
together
and
forming
this
amazing
pollution.
Fighting
group
and
that's
awesome,
but
the
trick
is,
is
like
this
is
not
guaranteed.
When
you
get
all
these
people
together
it
it
might
just
collapse,
it
might
just
fall
apart
and
that's
actually
pretty
scary.
C
How
many
people
here
have
written
in
RFC
commented
on
an
RFC
enjoyed
it?
Oh
no
I
think
people
didn't
know.
There
was
a
third
question.
I'm
just
gonna.
That
was
the
case.
Sorry
about
that
so
yeah
we
have
this
RFC
process
and
the
RFC
process
has
had
a
little
bit
of
an
evolution.
So
the
main
idea
behind
the
RFC
process
is
this
idea
of
no
new
rationale,
and
this
actually
didn't
come
up
out
of
the
first
part
of
the
RFC
process
but
kind
of
emerged
later,
because
the
original
RFC
process
wasn't
really
open.
C
It
kind
of
gave
a
little
bit
of
lip
service
to
openness
like
it
was
there.
You
know
how
you
can
just
put
something
on
github,
but
that
doesn't
make
it
open
source.
It
was
kind
of
like
that,
and
so
this
is
a
quote
from
somebody
who
felt
the
need
to
call
rust
out
on
it.
Basically,
there
was
this
RFC
that
happened,
and
you
know
people
in
the
core
team
didn't
really
participate.
Instead,
they
went
off
into
a
room
had
their
own
conversation
showed
up
and
said
we
thought
about
it.
C
Here's
the
solution
and
everyone
was
like
what
the
hell.
That's,
not
cool
like
we're
all
here
in
this
room
chatting
and
you
just
like
pieced
out
and
then
like
called
the
shots.
That's
not
what
true
openness
is
about
and
if
we're
gonna
put
the
effort
to
participate
in
this
process,
the
leaders
better
also
and
if
you're
not
gonna,
be
here.
That's
not
gonna
succeed
and
that's
where
this
idea
of
no
new
rationale
happened,
and
so
all
decisions
need
to
be
discussed
in
the
public
and
I'll.
Tell
you
right
now,
as
I
said,
we're
still
working.
C
C
C
True
openness
involves
commenting
and
participating
fully,
and
if
you
want
to
vent,
it's
probably
best
to
do
it
in
private
and
not
with
emoji
or
just
use
positive,
emojis,
anyways,
so
Aaron,
who
has
written
a
several
of
these
blog
posts,
and
if
you
were
unaware
that
Aaron
has
like
I
guess,
I
call
it
the
feelings,
blog
I
actually
don't
know
the
official
name.
Does
that
work
all.
C
C
Of
the
RFC
process
and
it
played
out
over
a
dozen
different
threads,
reaching
fourteen
hundred
plus
comments
in
total,
which
is
impressive,
and
so
in
taking
a
look
at
this
saga
kind
of
identified,
a
couple
of
things
that
are
downsides
of
the
RFC
process.
So
the
first
is
momentum,
and
it's
funny
I've
been
writing
a
couple
of
RCS
over
the
past
year,
and
somebody
told
me
like
very
sincerely
you
know
an
RFC.
C
Rarely
survives
its
first
comment,
which
is
to
say
whatever
that
first
comment
is
it's
very
likely
to
set
the
tone
for
the
entire
discussion
in
a
way
that
is
very
difficult
to
evade
afterwards.
There
needs
to
be
a
lot
of
effort
to
kind
of
steer
it
away
from
when
the
person
has
started,
and
this
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
the
original
commenter
has
done
anything
wrong.
But
it's
kind
of
just
the
way
momentum
works.
It's
the
way
that
threads
work.
C
It's
this
linear
thing,
and
so
you
start
going
down
one,
and
then
it
kind
of
builds
off
that
and
suddenly
we're
talking
a
lot
more
about
the
thread.
Then
we're
talking
about
the
original
artifact
to
begin
with.
The
second
one
is
urgency,
which
is
men
we
give
so
many
in
the
Russ
community
holy.
We
care
hard
all
right.
The
stakes
are
high.
C
C
It
is
so
much
to
ask
of
people
and
it's
one
of
the
interesting
things
about
scale
scale.
Is
this
amazing
thing
that
kind
of
points
to
rest
success,
but
it's
also
kind
of
getting
us
to
this
pot,
we're
like
how
do
we
fit
everyone
in
this
room
and
be
able
to
hear
everyone
at
the
same
time?
It's
an
incredibly
difficult
problem
and
again
this
is
something
that
like
people
haven't
solved
yet
and
like
it's
one
of
the
biggest
problems
of
the
internet
generally.
C
So
this
kind
of
brings
me
back
to
this
book
that
Aaron
really
likes
where
it
says
you
know.
The
fundamental
response
to
change
is
not
logical,
even
though
I
know
we're
programmers,
and
we
assume
that
everything
we
do
is
friggin
logical.
It's
not
our
very
first
response
to
change
is
always
going
to
be
emotional,
so
you
probably
kind
of
feel
like
this
and
that
maybe
that's
removing
the
mod
key
word.
Maybe.
C
B
C
So
a
lot
of
the
sensation
often
happens,
particularly
when
we
start
thinking
in
this
zero-sum
way.
Like
oh,
no,
like
the
room
is
too
full.
Not
everybody
can
get
here,
everyone,
and
so
there's
this
sentiment
that,
like
okay,
luckily
enough
of
us,
are
gonna
yell
and
we're
gonna
stop
this
really
scary
proposal
from
happening,
and
we
have
to
keep
talking,
because
if
we
don't
stop
shouting
about
this,
the
evil
people
are
gonna.
C
Do
the
thing
that
we
don't
want
them
to
do,
and
this
is
like
a
terrifying
attitude,
but
this
is
real
and
like
I
have,
to
be
honest,
like
I've
felt
this
way
before
and
I
bet.
People
in
the
audience
have
also
felt
this
way
before
it's
a
it's,
a
real
feel,
and
it's
kind
of
weird
and
bums
me
out
knowing
that
I
relate
to
this,
because
it
kind
of
echoes
this
quote,
which
is
and
I'm
gonna
read
it,
because
it's
amazing
that
it's
a
real
quote:
I,
honestly
despised,
being
subtle
or
nice.
C
C
But
fundamentally,
what
we're
seeing
here
is
there's
this
vibe
of,
like
I,
want
to
be
able
to
wield
power,
but,
like
the
real
thing
I
want
to
do
is
be
able
to
change
minds,
and
these
things
are
at
a
fascinating
tension,
because
wielding
power
is
important.
We've
heard
about
the
need
to
focus
we've
heard.
C
But
instead
you
can
kind
of
just
view
it
the
other
way,
with
the
module
system,
song
I,
think
a
lot
of
people
think
by
the
end
of
the
RFC
that
they
had
gotten
the
original
people
to
compromise.
But
if
you
talk
to
the
original
people,
a
lot
of
them
will
say
that
it
wasn't
a
compromise
at
all.
In
fact,
what
happened
was
over
an
incredibly
long
and
very
emotionally
draining
process?
C
C
It
was
just
it
genuinely
just
created
a
better
solution,
and
that
is
what
this
idea
of
positive
sum
game
is
that,
even
though
it
can
feel
a
little
like
a
battle,
our
gains
and
losses
together
end
up
producing
something
is
better
than
just
the
status
quo,
so
infinite
kind
of
like
us
to
see
it
a
little
bit
like
this,
where
maybe
there's
a
battle,
but
we're
really
kind
of
on
the
same
side,
and
in
fact
you
should.
This
is
literally
Spider
Man
empathizing
with
himself
and
there's
a
cop
car
I.
C
C
There's.
No
way
because
like
they
have
to
live
and
stuff
and
the
money's
gonna
make
that
happen,
and
so,
if
you
have
an
entire
ecosystem
that
has
all
of
its
velocity
from
people
who
aren't
getting
paid,
then
the
people,
the
people
who
knew
that
many
don't
show
up
because
they
physically
can't
and
that's
like
a
really
big
problem.
C
But
even
if
we
were
somehow
able
to
bracket
the
economics
portion
out
of
this-
and
this
is
gonna
get
real,
so
stare
at
the
Corgi,
if
you
don't
like
it
like
rust,
is
probably
the
most
open
and
inclusive
open-source
project.
I've
ever
worked
in
and
I've
worked
in
a
lot
but
like
I'm
on
the
core
team
I
like
do
a
ton
of
work
and
there's
rough
spaces.
C
That
I
don't
feel
comfortable
and
like
that,
like
I
able
to
try
and
participate
and
like
I,
don't
know,
someone
says
I'm
a
bad
engineer,
because
I
use
emojis
I,
don't
know
like
why
the
hell.
Would
you
even
say
that
that's
ridiculous,
but
like
Russ,
not
perfect,
and
this
isn't
trying
to
call
out
that
there's
like
some
bad
actor
here,
who's
doing
something
wrong.
C
But
like
there's
just
like
history
and
material
conditions
and
like
I,
don't
know
it's
2018
and
a
lot
of
years
happened
before
that,
and
a
lot
of
stuff
happened
before
that,
and
just
because
rust
has
a
code
of
conduct
doesn't
change
that
that's
the
case.
And
so,
when
we
think
about
openness,
a
lot
of
us
are
programmers
and
we
love
thinking
about
first
principles,
openness
and
like
yeah
sure
that
would
be
cool.
But
we
can't
rip
ourselves
out
of
time
and
space.
C
So
we
have
to
realize
that
true
openness
doesn't
work
unless
we
also
bolster
people
up,
which
means
finding
the
people
who
have
a
lot
less
of
the
options
and
a
lot
less
of
the
opportunities
and
giving
them
those
opportunities
not
because
they
asked
or
because
they
did
something
or
like
show
they
were
worth
it.
But
because
we
care
about
making
equal
opportunity
like
a
real
thing.
C
Look
at
this
pumpkin,
its
pumpkin,
its
pumpkins
inequality
and
the
corgis
taking
it
out.
Alright,
so
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about
conflicts
here,
and
so
it's
like
what's
the
conflict
going
on
here
and
I,
couldn't
really
come
up
with
one.
It
turns
out,
there's
so
many
internal
conflicts
with
the
idea
of
openness
that
I'll
just
show
it
as
opposed
to
itself.
It's.
B
B
So
you
may
remember
some
of
these
slogans
from
years
past
and
they're
all
kind
of
of
this
of
the
same
nature
right
that
we
want
to
have
these
two
things
that
are
in
opposition,
but
where
we
can
find
some
kind
of
way
to
resolve
that
opposition
to
find
a
third
way
to
kind
of
get
the
best
of
both
worlds
and
get
them
both
and
that's
kind
of
where
we're
out
here.
With
this
talk,
no.
A
B
C
Similar
to
this
little
idea
of
opposition's
understanding,
what
a
dialectic
is
is
often
a
a
great
way
to
figure
it
out
is
to
see
it
as
opposed
to
formal
logic.
How
many
people
here
studied
any
sort
of
formal
logic,
math
all
right,
you're
gonna,
hate
this
so
in
general,
formal
logic
states
that
things
are
what
they
are
and
that
they
stand
in
definite
relationships
to
each
other.
It's
kind
of
this
law
of
identity
thing
where
we
say
a
equals.
A
so
may.
A
C
That
I'm
about
to
say
that
this
is
incorrect.
There
are
hidden
variables
all
right,
so
no,
this
is
actually
what
dialectics
are
opposed
to.
So
in
formal
logic,
it
says
hey
when
we
reach
a
contradiction,
we're
wrong
and
I'm
here
to
say:
that's
not
the
case
all
right,
so
the
hidden
variable
here
is
time,
and
so
things
are
able
to
change
over
time
and
so
I
like
to
say
a
does
not
equal
a,
and
this
is
a
good,
an
amazingly
great
thing.
C
So
this
is
idea
of
the
dialectical
method
and
lots
of
philosophers
worked
on
it,
including
Hegel,
but
it
says
that
the
dialectical
method,
in
contrast
to
the
method
of
formal
logic,
trains
us
to
identify
these
contradictions
and
thereby
get
to
the
bottom
of
the
changes
taking
place.
So
this
is
what
a
dialectic
looks
like,
and
the
idea
is
that
all
change
in
progress
comes
from
this
progression
of
dialectics,
and
if
this
is
like
a
little
heavy
because
this
talk
has
been
forever
and
you
need
some
more
animated,
gifs
I
found
one.
A
C
It's
also
visualized
kind
of
as
this
spiral
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
this
growth
pattern
and
that
what
fuels
the
growth
and
the
progression
over
time
is
this
idea
of
contradiction
so
again
in
formal
logic
and
I've
seen
this
happen
in
programming
so
many
times
it's
like.
Oh,
this
doesn't
work,
there's
a
contradiction.
This
failed
we're
wrong
and
the
answer
is
no.
This
is
the
opportunity
for
change.
This
is
where
the
growth
is
going
to
come
from,
because
these
fundamental
contradictions
are
what
fueled
history
all.
A
Right
all
right
enough
philosophy,
let
me
go
over
here,
so
let's
bring
this
back
to
rust.
So,
what's
interesting,
so
Nikko
wrote
a
blog
post.
You
might
have
read
recently
talking
about
some
new
ideas
around
the
RFC
process
and
there's
a
strange
kind
of
resemblance
actually
visually
to
this
dialectic
process,
and
you
know,
as
Nico
was
saying
in
some
sense,
this
has
always
been
part
of
rusts
process
and
in
some
sense
this
talk
is
really
about
relating
those
technical
opposition's
to
also
opposition's
around
people
systems.
A
There
are
lots
of
contradictions
or
apparent
contradictions
that
we're
trying
to
resolve,
and
we
are
definitely
on
that
spiral
right.
We're
constantly
refining
our
people
processes,
but
we're
also
refining
rust
itself
right,
so
rust
today
is
not
rust
tomorrow
and
in
a
sense
you
know
this
is
like
a
long
kong
like
the
whole
addition
process.
Guess
what
it's
about
dialectics
right,
so
rust
2018
is
not
the
same
as
rust,
2015!
It's
a
refinement,
we're
getting
smarter,
we're
understanding
the
contradictions,
better,
we're
synthesizing,
new
ideas
and
I.
A
Think
the
the
RFC
process
really
epitomizes
that
kind
of
dialectic
method
when
it
works
well,
so
to
kind
of
wrap
this
up
right.
This
has
been
a
talk
about
opposition's,
we've
seen
a
ton
of
them
just
to
sort
of
recap
right.
We
saw
at
the
beginning
with
Nico's
section,
there's
doing
vs.,
supporting
both
desirable
things,
but
you've
got
to
strike
a
balance
same
with
latency
versus
throughput.
A
I've
talked
about
building
capacity
out
versus
staying,
focused
and
Ashley
talked
about
the
complexities
of
openness
you
know,
but
the
the
point
is
the
point
of
all
this
is
that
opposition's
are
inescapable.
They
are
a
part
of
life
they're
at
the
heart
of
systems,
whether
those
systems
are
about
people
or
software,
but
I.
Think
one
of
the
really
fundamental
messages
here
is
that
there
are
conflicts,
but
conflicts
don't
have
to
generate
heat
right.
That
is
the
natural
response.
A
All
those
feelings
are
legitimate
and
should
be
vented
somewhere,
but
I
think
rust
and
its
community
is
at
its
best
when
we
can
have
those
conflicts
and
work
through
them
together
in
this
sort
of
positive
some
white.
In
other
words,
to
get
to
the
synthesis
we
have
to
do
a
lot
of
people
things
right.
We
have
to
be
good
at
listening
to
one
another.
We
have
to
have
a
diversity
of
ideas
and
we
have
to
pursue
this
idea
of
openness
right.
So
I
think
our
message
today
is
that
rust
just
is
about
this
synthesis.