3 ms·

> just sent the maintainer an email that he thought he deserved more credit would have been all it took to get it fixed Agreed completely. > workload on the p

> just sent the maintainer an email that he thought he deserved more credit would have been all it took to get it fixed Agreed completely. > workload on the part of the maintainer(s) ... unfamiliarity with the various processes ... absence of even clearer rules Yes these all contribute to the problem. The 'culture' of an open source project is basically opaque to a new contributor, no matter how "open" project's comms are a new contributor can't read them all. That's why it's unreasonable to expect them to be able to completely understand the rules, processes, and workloads that affect everyone involved in the environment where they are just making a new contribution. Which is why embracing the messy humanity and going all in on radical candor is the best solution. The other option is giving every new contributor a 10M word reading list just to catch up on the context, which is so impractical it's hardly worth mentioning.

jacquesm 3y ago
One issue may be the perceived intentions of the OP in the original conversation, they did mention credit but they also switched to their corporate email right in the middle (probably because they used company resources or to give the request more weight) which could have been easily interpreted as 'Cisco wants this stuff fixed pronto' and that may have been a misinterpretation about the goals of the OP, which - given the time span involved between the original fix and the blog post - may well have shifted over time. But Michael Ellerman's graceful apology puts to rest any kind of perceived bad intentions and the way the pitchforks have been brought out here to skewer a maintainer that simply made a - small - mistake in the heat of the moment is reminiscent of the the treatment of some other maintainers who chose to step down instead of to continue to be dumped on for just getting their job done. The OP made mistakes and did some questionable stuff, Michael Ellerman made a mistake but to me seems to have maintained the high ground from a moral perspective in spite of all of the vitriol here, including that from the OP. If anything that thread is a model of restraint.
- infogulch 3y ago
  Oh I found the thread with Michael's response, I hadn't seen that. I think your assessment is reasonable. https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg221990.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/m...

jacquesm 3y ago

One issue may be the perceived intentions of the OP in the original conversation, they did mention credit but they also switched to their corporate email right in the middle (probably because they used company resources or to give the request more weight) which could have been easily interpreted as 'Cisco wants this stuff fixed pronto' and that may have been a misinterpretation about the goals of the OP, which - given the time span involved between the original fix and the blog post - may well have shifted over time. But Michael Ellerman's graceful apology puts to rest any kind of perceived bad intentions and the way the pitchforks have been brought out here to skewer a maintainer that simply made a - small - mistake in the heat of the moment is reminiscent of the the treatment of some other maintainers who chose to step down instead of to continue to be dumped on for just getting their job done. The OP made mistakes and did some questionable stuff, Michael Ellerman made a mistake but to me seems to have maintained the high ground from a moral perspective in spite of all of the vitriol here, including that from the OP. If anything that thread is a model of restraint.

infogulch 3y ago
Oh I found the thread with Michael's response, I hadn't seen that. I think your assessment is reasonable. https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg221990.html https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/m...