Recent searches
Search options
Right or wrong, the feeling I got was that the bar for actions was just raised higher. Now it's not just the CoC committee, you also need a near unanimous vote from the TAB.
@jani @corbet @ljs @brauner I'm a bit disillusioned at the whole CoC thing - in practice, there are zero repercussions from being a jerk. Banning people from being archived/listed by lore does not prevent them from doing their work, people equating those two things are kidding themselves. Developers getting CC'ed directly generally have no idea the person is banned, and any reply will presumably be archived/listed anyway.
@axboe @jani @corbet @brauner well you might get asked to apologise (no consequences if you refuse)? And get implicit permission to turn up to LF events you're not invited to and abuse people?
Then wait a month to treat the RC process like the merge window again or something?
That's sort of a repercussion right? 
It's all a joke. Kent was the test. Failed.
@axboe @jani @corbet @brauner Yeah it's only _certain_ kinds of people who will be encouraged.
What infuriated me most about that whole thing was that Kent got to dictate the narrative.
Reality was his broken mm patch was nacked, he threw a temper tantrum and abused the kernel process to take the patch through his tree (outrageous, banning offence stuff imo), and then when it was fixed he got abusive.
His 5,000 word bullshit on patreon + on-list warbling is what people took as the narrative.
@ljs @jani @corbet @brauner Well, as far as I can tell, he might be doing that exact same thing again. His -next branch:
https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git/log/?h=for-next
has a block patch that he sent out to linux-block, got effectively nak'ed as being broken by multiple people, ignored, and then sent out as part of a larger bcachefs patchset and is now staged in the above branch?
