> In this case, requirements about code quality and even refusal of code likely to introduce bugs is being called "gatekeeping" which is complete nonsense. I s

> In this case, requirements about code quality and even refusal of code likely to introduce bugs is being called "gatekeeping" which is complete nonsense. I strongly agree with you. I know gatekeeping has negative connotations and has become a sort of generalized boo word in some circles. But I'm glad maintainers act as gate keepers. Some code is crap and some coders aren't very good. Or, at least, their abilities don't match their ambitions. Someone has to keep low-quality work out of open source projects, and it's not a job I would want. Nevertheless, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The real problem with gate-keeping is when the gate-keepers aren't accountable. Criticism is one of the ways we can keep them accountable. It's the same many areas. I want engineering schools and guilds to gate-keep so bridges don't fall down when I'm driving across them. I want news and book editors to gate-keep so I don't have to wade through acres of dross to find worthwhile content. And I want maintainers to gate-keep so open source software works when I need it.