I have a very different interpretation.
> an LKML rust technical disagreement
The point is that there's no technical disagreement. It's only a philosophical/religious disagreement about whether Rust should belong in the kernel or not. (Go see the original thread, the maintainer flat out says that much.)
My issue with this situation is Linus' inconsistency. Either Linus accepts Rust in the kernel, or he does not. Since he did accept Rust in the kernel, he shouldn't allow maintainers to boycott patches just for the sake that they oppose Rust in the kernel, which is _exactly_ what seemed to be the issue here. There was no technical argument for refusing the patch. Nor was there a request for C developers to learn Rust, nor even to have Rust drivers consume C APIs directly.
This *really* seems like a situation where any leader worth the title should step in and resolve these social/philosophical/religious issues. Again: either kicking Rust off the kernel, or allowing it, are both fine options. But just an in between that causes chaos, including several maintainers to resign out of desperation, and just doing nothing, is leadership failure. Linus may have been very successful, but he's not a god, and this is clearly a failure on his part IMO. (I added this last sentence because people seem to put him on a magical pedestal).