From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C78EB16
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 23 Oct 2018 06:27:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com [141.146.126.78])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 203137BE
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 23 Oct 2018 06:27:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:26:52 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>, Mishi Choudhary <mishi@linux.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20181023062652.yrns7n67jkuict5n@mwanda>
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com>
	<87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
	<20181021222608.GA24845@localhost>
	<875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
	<20181022224604.GM1617@thunk.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181022224604.GM1617@thunk.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of
 Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 06:46:04PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Neil,
> 
> I disagree with your framing, and thus your analysis, and thus your
> proposed solution.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 07:26:06AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > If, for example, Linus or Andrew said "if you cannot work with any given
> > maintainer, I will consider your patch directly, but you need to point
> > to where you tried, and why you failed - or to where the promise is
> > inadequate".
> > 
> > Currently if a maintainer is rude to you, there is no where else that
> > you can go and *that* is why it hurts.  It isn't the abuse so much as
> > the powerlessness associated with it.  If you can (metaphorically) say
> > to that maintainer "I don't care about your toilet mouth, you've just
> > given me the right to take my petition to caesar" - then the emotional
> > response will be quite different to pain.
> 
> No.  That's just not how things work.  Patches don't get rejected
> because maintainers are being rude.  Patches don't get accepted
> because they are not of a sufficiently high technical quality.

I once sent a bugfix and instead of applying it, the maintainer insulted
me and rejected it because the subject wasn't in imperative tense and
because I said "NULL dereference" instead of "NULL pointer dereference."

Ten years back there was a patch rejected because "F*** you, what do
women know about programming?"  I can't imagine it happening now, but I
was so shocked by it at the time also...

regards,
dan carpenter