# RustConf and Speaker Consent

JeanHeyd Meneide (aka "The PhD"), Software Engineer and the Project Editor for ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG14 - Programming Languages, C, [had their RustConf 2023 talk demoted from keynote to regular talk and has subsequently decided to leave the program roster](https://thephd.dev/i-am-no-longer-speaking-at-rustconf-2023). I want to first of all thank for the blog post that identifies a lot of the issues well, and is careful to point in the right directions.

Some may wonder, however, why all of this is a problem and how such a strong reaction is warranted. I'll give my perspective as someone who ran program rosters for over 20 conferences, among them RustFest 2016-2018, OxidizeConf and others. I fully support the action and am eagerly awaiting a full disclosure of the Rust project how this happened.

The relationship between the conference organiser and the speaker is one of mutual consent and trust. A good speaker makes themselves vulnerable and shares thoughts (potentially rough and unfinished) in trust with the audience, the conference organiser provides the stage and said audience. It is of utmust importance to keep this relationship intact at all times. This also means to hold communicated agreements.

The most important thing in this is that once an agreement to speak is found, no changes are done without the consent of both sides[1]. Changes happen, this can be as small as a slot change to a complete topic change. All of these have happened to me - how do you never see that? Because the two parties have a conversation and the conversation ends when both sides have found the way to pull the program off. Again, _on mutual consent_.

This has not happened here - the organisers got in touch, informing the speaker that waving at an unadressable group, claiming an authority (the Rust project) and demote the keynote. It was not voiced as a concern or an opening of a discussion. JeanHeyd had no way to address the concerns (especially as the concern-havers have not been in the room to my reading). They were handed down the decision, without the ability to reject or find another solution. This breaks mutual consent. Dropping out of the talk is the _minimal_ response to this.

The problem is amplified by the Rust project being defined by being _better_ and holding itself to a high standard - at admittedly often also met in the past.

I am, as a conference organiser in the Rust space, ashamed of this happening - the whole RustFest project was created to make sure we carry over experience as the above over from conferences like eurucamp and JSConf into the Rust scene and start with high standards. This stance was always marginalised in the Rust project.

However, RustConf was never under the Rust projects leadership - it was always run by Leah Silber from Tilde, an extremely experienced conference organiser and chaired by a number of members of the Rust project, who were sometimes, but often not in the core team. One keynote was traditionally for multiple people from leadership (usually core), to avoid figureheads.[2] Nowadays, RustConf is run by the Rust Foundation, an independent organisation from the Rust Project.

It might surprise you in the current political climate, but my conclusion out of this is that the Rust Foundation and the RustConf organisers should do their thing, select and sponsor awesome people and run programs they feel are awesome. And stay with the committed. The ball is plainly in the projects court here.

Florian Gilcher // @skade

[1]: The obvious exception here are outside breaches of trust e.g. violations of code of conduct or other breaches, but those are not relevant here.
[2]: A procedure I'd love if it was re-introduced.