That's not really the truth though, is it? If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed. Or by "nobody was happy", did you mean "nobody really cared, because English is their primary language, thus they aren't affected at all"?
The new website is very pretty. I don't understand why the deployment could not have waited until the translations were completed. Even just translating 4-5 widely used languages would've sufficed, although still not ideal compared to the old website.
Even if people wanted to visit the old website, it's buried at the bottom of the new one, practically invisible.
> If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed.
This is an incredibly simplistic view of how projects work. On any large project, there are a number of objectives, with different priorities. And there are a number of factors, some public, some private, as to why projects end up the way that they do.
I am the person who implemented the original i18n support. It took me a year of effort to get it shipped. I do care about this. That's not incompatible with what's occurred.
> "nobody really cared, because English is their primary language, thus they aren't affected at all"?
Even if English is a primary language, that doesn't mean we aren't affected. For example, not shipping it means that I have to be embarrassed and apologize when people on the internet point out this shortcoming. Not shipping it can limit growth, as you point out. There are tons of ways.
> I don't understand why the deployment could not have waited until the translations were completed.
The original way of doing i18n was completely untenable. Doing it a better way takes time and effort. That's before the translations are actually made. That work has been ongoing since December of last year. It's getting pretty close now, with a lot of movement recently.
> but few people who are actually willing to step up and do work. That's the limiting factor on getting stuff done.
That's why waiting is also an option. Feel free to excuse it however, but removing i18n here was a pretty big mistake on the rust team's part. For what? Rust 2018? I didn't contribute to the website, but I also didn't force anyone to change it either.
> There are a lot of people willing to get extremely mad about the website online
I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. It's rare to see actual i18n for open source projects, and it's absurd to see it get removed arbitrarily when it does exist. I believe the Rust team is capable of delivering much better quality updates, hence my writing here. I'm also sick and tired of i18n being considered an afterthought by people who do have the resources to accomplish it to at least a basic degree.
Also, just because something is open source doesn't mean "well why don't you just go do it then" is a valid argument. It isn't.
> So aside from you, nobody on the team cared about i18n enough to actually get it implemented before deployment–it wasn't a priority. Got it.
It's not a matter of care; it's a matter of time and stuff to do. There are a lot of people willing to get extremely mad about the website online, but few people who are actually willing to step up and do work. That's the limiting factor on getting stuff done.
Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"? First I was "yelling" and now this...
My "different idea" is keeping the ability of non-English speakers to use the website and learn about Rust. I (and most people, I think) would not prefer a prettier site to one that has support for 10+ languages. Do you not agree?
My "position" is one of someone that heavily uses a language other than English. I very much enjoyed the old Rust site, because it meant I could actually show it to people around me, because their native language was supported. This isn't a tradeoff so much as a dealbreaker. What tradeoff was there for pushing the new website deployment too early?
I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an update that made the website prettier but removed i18n for no reason. Why? Was there a fiscal incentive to immediately replace the website before any translations could be done?
So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?
> Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"?
Making as assertion about someone telling a lie comes across as that, if you're given the benefit of a doubt and assumed to not be someone that calls people out as liars with little evidence unless you get carried away.
But perhaps calling people liars is a normal mode of communication for you, and you didn't lose your cool at al. That's definitely one way to interpret the comments so far, given how you equate "criticizing" to how you've presented your position so far.
I think you had good points initially. I also think that when presented with facts about this specific situation you've allowed you argument to devolve into a stubborn stand based on technicalities while belittling others.
> So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?
I simply think we need to be honest about the language that we use. The truth is, instead of "nobody was happy", "nobody made i18n a priority" is far more accurate. Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.
If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed? That brings us to even more questions. Nothing presented thus far portrayed the decision to update in a better light, in fact it's only made my opinion of it worse.
I am used to websites having little to no i18n, but it's a complete mistake to actively remove existing i18n. For what? Rust 2018? A better looking landing page? Honestly now I'm just skeptical about the organizational structures that lead to this decision being approved.
> If nobody was happy about it, why was it deployed?
I think you've confused "nobody was happy" with "nobody thought it needed to be done". The world is rife with actions that nobody is happy with, but most or many agree is the best of the bad options available. Just because you think there doesn't exist or can't imagine a situation in which it was better for them to do what they did than the alternative doesn't mean that's the case. There's already been an admission that the situation was bad, the result is a mistake. Whether that mistake was at the point of making the choice on dropping internationalization or at a point, possibly many months earlier, which hemmed them in and didn't allow them a good choice beyond "don't update and deal with the major problems that causes or update and deal with the major problems lack of internationalization causes" is unknown, assuming one over the other and calling people liars based on your assumption isn't very responsible.
> Calling it a "lie" is perhaps too strong, but that's essentially what it is, intentional or not.
I don't think "perhaps" is even in question. You didn't have the information to make that assertion definitively, as there are plenty of very possible and likely scenarios where it's not a lie. Do do so against a person who does know the specifics as they were involved, and without first digging deeper as to those specifics, is something I view as irresponsible.
