Psychology of change

The psychology behind the recent discussions is quite interesting to me. It's one of those changes I believe most everyone will be happy with after it happens, but will cause large amounts of churn until it does (or unlikely, fails).

A more centralised project could employ a change manager to help with the change going on here. They are a kind of psychologist who specialises in how to provide for the needs of people who are experiencing change. They might suggest a series of sessions to provide maintainers some basic training or knowledge about how Rust might impact them, to support them and make them feel included and supported in the change. The goal would be to let them feel in control and capable of reviewing rust changes when they affect C code, instead of that changes they don't understand are being forced on them.

Unfortunately, Linux as a decentralised project would find it extraordinarily difficult to provide funding for these resources and get turnout in sessions. Its one of the unfortunate and unavoidable trade-offs in how Linux is run, that these changes involve unnecessary violence and churn.

The range of responses of existing Linux maintainers to Rust (from extreme support to distrust) are all common human responses to change, ones that you and your friends are liable to have too. Luckily there are techniques to reduce the pain. Shaming them is not one of them, it's just likely to make an even more divisive environment, more prone to bad outcomes.