git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines

From
Thomas Adam <thomas@xteddy.org>
Date
Jun 13, 2013, 10:19 UTC
Message-ID
<20130613101856.GA11034@workstation.dev.smoothwall.net>
In-Reply-To
<CALkWK0mqk5sRPV8PHz8RqZH-Ln7TUtkHPVbvsJPKuVSXiUOiww@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:58:47PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
[...]

I often come across so-called "community guidelines" in other projects---some of which adhere to them quite strictly, and others simply document something for the curious. But usually the reason for their existence in the first place are tell-tale signs of trying to fix a problem at the wrong end, and I believe this is what is about to happen if a document such as this ever becomes official.

There's no disputing the fact that over the last few weeks, FC's behaviour has been called in to question. He's managed to rub a lot of core people up the wrong way, and in doing so has deliberately side-stepped that problem by doing the one thing which puts anyone trying to raise that point muted; by assuming that he's right.

It's a point on which one is never going to win, because no matter what one says, it'll just get twisted round in such a way that one then ends up questioning their own words, and their own conduct, and that's bad, because there never was anything wrong with them to begin with.

So when you realise this point, it becomes almost impossible to proceed further with any kind of discussion, because even the technical points of discussion then end up being lost in a tirade of needless side-stepping discussion. It's a bullying tactic on the part of FC which means he'll do any, and everything, to get his own way.

So I say to all those seasoned reviewers out there on this list not to put up with it.

There comes a point, regardless of how useful someone's contribution may be, that if the barrier to entry is so high that any kind of criticism or comment made against code comes with a massive chance of having to defend yourself against innocence on the part of the reviewer, that those contributions should be shelved. I've seen also another yardstick used to defend FC's behaviour, and that is one of "commits within the last three months". That count is completely meaningless, since the review process is always going to be the same.

So these guidelines gain the community nothing, and only serve to punish those who are already following them, without them being written down, because the root-cause of the problem is still here, and isn't going to go away, no matter how much referring to these guidelines might help.

That is why I think this is the wrong thing to do.
-- Thomas Adam
Previous: Ramkumar RamachandraNext: Felipe Contreras
Message 61 of 63 in “Documentation/CommunityGuidelines”
  1. Documentation/CommunityGuidelinesRamkumar Ramachandra, Jun 10, 2013
  2. Célestin MatteJun 10, 2013
  3. Matthieu MoyJun 10, 2013
  4. Robin H. JohnsonJun 10, 2013
  5. Junio C HamanoJun 10, 2013
  6. Jonathan NiederJun 10, 2013
  7. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 10, 2013
  8. A Large Angry SCMJun 10, 2013
  9. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 10, 2013
  10. A Large Angry SCMJun 10, 2013
  11. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  12. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  13. Michael HaggertyJun 11, 2013
  14. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  15. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  16. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  17. Thomas RastJun 11, 2013
  18. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  19. Michael HaggertyJun 11, 2013
  20. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  21. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  22. Michael HaggertyJun 11, 2013
  23. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  24. Junio C HamanoJun 11, 2013
  25. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  26. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  27. Brandon CaseyJun 11, 2013
  28. Theodore Ts'oJun 12, 2013
  29. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 12, 2013
  30. Felipe ContrerasJun 12, 2013
  31. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  32. Thomas RastJun 11, 2013
  33. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  34. Thomas RastJun 11, 2013
  35. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  36. Junio C HamanoJun 11, 2013
  37. Michael HaggertyJun 11, 2013
  38. John KeepingJun 11, 2013
  39. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  40. John KeepingJun 11, 2013
  41. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 12, 2013
  42. John KeepingJun 12, 2013
  43. Michael HaggertyJun 11, 2013
  44. John KeepingJun 11, 2013
  45. Philip OakleyJun 11, 2013
  46. John SzakmeisterJun 12, 2013
  47. Jakub NarebskiJun 12, 2013
  48. Philip OakleyJun 12, 2013
  49. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  50. Jeff KingJun 11, 2013
  51. Junio C HamanoJun 11, 2013
  52. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  53. Theodore Ts'oJun 12, 2013
  54. Felipe ContrerasJun 12, 2013
  55. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 12, 2013
  56. Junio C HamanoJun 12, 2013
  57. Michael HaggertyJun 13, 2013
  58. Junio C HamanoJun 13, 2013
  59. Felipe ContrerasJun 11, 2013
  60. Ramkumar RamachandraJun 11, 2013
  61. Thomas AdamJun 13, 2013
  62. Felipe ContrerasJun 13, 2013
  63. Christian CouderJun 14, 2013

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.