3 ms·

Or maybe good deeds are good deeds, and bad behavior is bad behavior. Maintainers deserve gratitude, empathy, and respect. Most of them are holding the line ag

Or maybe good deeds are good deeds, and bad behavior is bad behavior. Maintainers deserve gratitude, empathy, and respect. Most of them are holding the line against shitty contributions and shoddy code, and that’s a good thing. The good they do doesn’t absolve them of problematic behavior.

jacquesm 3y ago
I'll settle for 'perceived problematic behavior' and suggest you read the actual interchange between the OP and the kernel maintainer. Because it paints a completely different picture.
- haswell 3y ago
  I did read the exchange, and there is problematic behavior all around. The author did themselves a disservice with their disingenuous paraphrasing. The lack of attribution remains a problem however, and is not justified by the author’s misrepresentation; just as the author’s behavior is not justified by the lack of attribution. OP could have maintained the moral high ground but didn’t, and that’s a bummer, because now this is an “everyone sucks here” situation. Attribution remains important.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That's fair. And Michael Ellerman actually agrees that he could have handled this better, I think OP should have just worked on this in private exchange rather than to make a public attack. I think that given the status of the project there should be a change to the guidelines to ensure that even the smallest contributions get properly credited, but to make sure that then isn't gamed you'd need to somehow get out of the binary 'I'm a contributor' vs 'I've been contributing for years' situation by adding yet another metric or the inflation of the term 'kernel contributor' will be such that some people who do contribute on a regular basis will feel that their status is diminished. Project governance is complex. I'm very mindful of the reason (see the drama around PEP 572) why GvR quit the status of head of the Python project, being a project maintainer is a very tough spot to be in because every action you perform is potentially going to be under the magnifying glass and all the good you do is forgotten five minutes later.

jacquesm 3y ago

I'll settle for 'perceived problematic behavior' and suggest you read the actual interchange between the OP and the kernel maintainer. Because it paints a completely different picture.

haswell 3y ago
I did read the exchange, and there is problematic behavior all around. The author did themselves a disservice with their disingenuous paraphrasing. The lack of attribution remains a problem however, and is not justified by the author’s misrepresentation; just as the author’s behavior is not justified by the lack of attribution. OP could have maintained the moral high ground but didn’t, and that’s a bummer, because now this is an “everyone sucks here” situation. Attribution remains important.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That's fair. And Michael Ellerman actually agrees that he could have handled this better, I think OP should have just worked on this in private exchange rather than to make a public attack. I think that given the status of the project there should be a change to the guidelines to ensure that even the smallest contributions get properly credited, but to make sure that then isn't gamed you'd need to somehow get out of the binary 'I'm a contributor' vs 'I've been contributing for years' situation by adding yet another metric or the inflation of the term 'kernel contributor' will be such that some people who do contribute on a regular basis will feel that their status is diminished. Project governance is complex. I'm very mindful of the reason (see the drama around PEP 572) why GvR quit the status of head of the Python project, being a project maintainer is a very tough spot to be in because every action you perform is potentially going to be under the magnifying glass and all the good you do is forgotten five minutes later.