Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:26:52 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Mishi Choudhary <mishi@linux.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of
 Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
Message-ID: <20181023062652.yrns7n67jkuict5n@mwanda>
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com>
 <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost>
 <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
 <20181022224604.GM1617@thunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181022224604.GM1617@thunk.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:46:04PM -0400, 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.  Patches don't get accepted
> because they are not of a sufficiently high technical quality.

I once sent a bugfix and instead of applying it, the maintainer insulted
me and rejected it because the subject wasn't in imperative tense and
because I said "NULL dereference" instead of "NULL pointer dereference."

Ten years back there was a patch rejected because "F*** you, what do
women know about programming?"  I can't imagine it happening now, but I
was so shocked by it at the time also...

regards,
dan carpenter