Автора BcacheFS наказали за нарушение CoC, не принимают патчи, до публичного покаяния
Ссылка на драму в изложении Кента:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/116412665
Небольшая выдержка для Ъ:
TLDR: the future of bcachefs in the kernel is uncertain, and lots of things aren't looking good.
Linus has said he isn't accepting my 6.13 pull request, per «an open issue with the CoC board», and at this point I have no idea what's going on with the CoC board. I, for my part, have felt for quite some time that there are issues about our culture and the way we do work that need to be raised, and that hasn't been going anywhere - hence this post.
What follows will be an account of some (not atypical) LKML drama, along with some analysis of where things went wrong - cultural issues, poor processes.
..........
It seems I provoked a response, just not the one I was hoping for. Previously, it was commonly understood that the CoC's response would be to eject you from Linux Foundation conferences. That's changed. After my email discussion with the CoC, some new patches showed up on the mailing list and went in, outlining the new response.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241114205649.44179-1-skhan@linuxfoundation.org/
Now, it's a full ban from participating in any way.
..........
There's been zero transparency or public announcement from the CoC on this matter - simply a private note from Linus that per the CoC my pull request wouldn't be going in. (He claimed to not know anything about the matter in question, it seems this is all on them). Is a full ban from the mailing list next?
Ну и выдержка из новых правил разработки ядра, под которыми расписались Линус, Грег, Тед Тсо:
+Seek public apology for the violation
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+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
