[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
On Mon, Oct 22 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> Neil,
> I disagree with your framing, and thus your analysis, and thus your
> proposed solution.
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
>> If, for example, Linus or Andrew said "if you cannot work with any given
>> maintainer, I will consider your patch directly, but you need to point
>> to where you tried, and why you failed - or to where the promise is
>> inadequate".
>> Currently if a maintainer is rude to you, there is no where else that
>> you can go and *that* is why it hurts. It isn't the abuse so much as
>> the powerlessness associated with it. If you can (metaphorically) say
>> to that maintainer "I don't care about your toilet mouth, you've just
>> given me the right to take my petition to caesar" - then the emotional
>> response will be quite different to pain.
> No. That's just not how things work. Patches don't get rejected
> because maintainers are being rude.

Correct. Patches don't get *posted* because maintainers are rude. They
don't get accepted because they weren't posted.

Do you disagree with my claim that the main cause of hurt is

Without that, we may as well be on different planets.

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-23 03:32    [W:0.178 / U:7.332 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site