Bcachefs Changes Rejected Reportedly Due To CoC, Kernel Future "Uncertain"

[TheMightyBuzzard]

I love this thread so much, basically kent disagreed, michal said it was discused in a previous thread, kent asked for thread, michal said to find it himself, kent accused him of being insane because he again, couldn't find the thread and people refused to provide it, michal said kent was incapable of not being insane, kent told michal to get his head examined, shuah said the behavior is inexcusable (but saying kent is incapable of not being insane isn't)

Yup but crazy people are still easier to work with than people who think CoCs are a good idea.

[Quackdoc]

also of note, lets be clear what the issue here is.

The issue here is not kent being toxic, it's that COC is demanding a public appology, despite it already being worked out, start reading from here https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/vvulqfv...@7qj4gyaw2zfo/

[TheMightyBuzzard]

also of note, lets be clear what the issue here is.

The issue here is not kent being toxic, it's that COC is demanding a public appology, despite it already being worked out, start reading from here https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/vvulqfvftctokjzy3ookgmx2ja73uuekvby3xcc2quvptudw7e @7qj4gyaw2zfo/

"We've gotta protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen!" -- Governor William J Lepetomane

[DanL]

The issue here is not kent being toxic, it's that COC is demanding a public appology, despite it already being worked out, start reading from here https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/vvulqfv...@7qj4gyaw2zfo/

He used language in violation of the mailing list. I'm thinking that's what they want him to acknowledge and apologize for, even if he "worked it out" with the person it was originally directed at.

[Quackdoc]

He used language in violation of the mailing list. I'm thinking that's what they want him to acknowledge and apologize for, even if he "worked it out" with the person it was originally directed at.

what language did he use that would be in violation that michal didn't though. michal is just as guilty here. yet kent was the one, again, singled out.

[fafreeman]

It doesn't really matter. His bias in what he self-reported is very telling. He wrote a novella about how he was slighted, left links to the things that he thought slighted him, wrote maybe 20 words about what happened, didn't leave any links to what actually happened, and went into minimal details, again without links, about how the things that are slighting him now are happening in other communities. He acted like Guido van Rossum from Python following the Python CoC rules and regulations is a conspiracy. If he ever gives up programming he could have a good job writing news for FOX or OAN.

fox and oan living rent free in the minds of leftist. especially oan. i swear leftist know more about oan than rightist do. i never see anyone on the right ever mention oan.
honestly i only know of oan because of leftist randomly bringing them up.

[alvinde]

also of note, lets be clear what the issue here is.

The issue here is not kent being toxic, it's that COC is demanding a public appology, despite it already being worked out, start reading from here https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/vvulqfvftctokjzy3ookgmx2ja73uuekvby3xcc2quvptudw7e @7qj4gyaw2zfo/

I read the CoC patch Michael linked to before seeing your reply, and the whole "seek a public apology" stuff seemed very odd. I am going to take a guess that Kent was asked to apologize and refused. I'm no fan of Kent's previous behaviour, but looking at the interaction above that most likely lead to this, I wouldn't apologize either. This whole thing is kinda like a communist struggle session.

+Code of Conduct Committee will evaluate other measures such as seeking
+public apology to repair the damage.​

+The Code of Conduct Committee publicly calls out the behavior in the
+setting in which the violation has taken place, seeking public apology
+for the violation.
+
+A public apology for the violation is the first step towards rebuilding
+the trust. Trust is essential for the continued success and health of the
+community which operates on trust and respect.​

+Remedial measures if there is no public apology for the violation
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The Code of Conduct Committee determines the next course of action to restore
+the healthy collaboration by recommending remedial measure(s) to the TAB for
+approval.
+
+- Ban violator from participating in the kernel development process for
+ a period of up to a full kernel development cycle. The Code of Conduct
+ Committee could require public apology as a condition for lifting the
+ ban.
+
+The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
+
+ a. denying patch contributions and pull requests
+ b. pausing collaboration with the violator by ignoring their
+ contributions and/or blocking their email account(s)
+ c. restricting their ability to communicate via kernel.org platforms,
+ such as mailing lists and social media sites​

[Quackdoc]

I read the CoC patch Michael linked to before seeing your reply, and the whole "seek a public apology" stuff seemed very odd. I am going to take a guess that Kent was asked to apologize and refused. I'm no fan of Kent's previous behaviour, but looking at the interaction above that most likely lead to this, I wouldn't apologize either. This whole thing is kinda like a communist struggle session.

+Code of Conduct Committee will evaluate other measures such as seeking
+public apology to repair the damage.​

+The Code of Conduct Committee publicly calls out the behavior in the
+setting in which the violation has taken place, seeking public apology
+for the violation.
+
+A public apology for the violation is the first step towards rebuilding
+the trust. Trust is essential for the continued success and health of the
+community which operates on trust and respect.​

+Remedial measures if there is no public apology for the violation
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The Code of Conduct Committee determines the next course of action to restore
+the healthy collaboration by recommending remedial measure(s) to the TAB for
+approval.
+
+- Ban violator from participating in the kernel development process for
+ a period of up to a full kernel development cycle. The Code of Conduct
+ Committee could require public apology as a condition for lifting the
+ ban.
+
+The scope of the ban for a period of time could include:
+
+ a. denying patch contributions and pull requests
+ b. pausing collaboration with the violator by ignoring their
+ contributions and/or blocking their email account(s)
+ c. restricting their ability to communicate via kernel.org platforms,
+ such as mailing lists and social media sites​

yes, this was addressed in the blog post.

[highball]

Code of cucks ruining things once again

Yep, fastest way to take down a successful project.

[DanL]

what language did he use that would be in violation that michal didn't though. michal is just as guilty here. yet kent was the one, again, singled out.

Did he say "Get the fuck out of here with this shit"?