> How you treat other people when you communicate actually is important.

In software the user is important. If you are the maintainer of a major project and you hurt the user because somebody was mean to you, you shouldn't be the maintainer of a major project.

Why does that point has to be explained?

> Do you want to rant on the internet about how right you are and how stupid everyone else is, or do you want your bug fixed?

What part of "I don't even care what they do" wasn't clear? I made my objective explicit: to show *GNOME*'s shitty practices.

1. What makes you think I didn't use a patched version? 2. I said I'm using kitty now, I don't care what they do.

I made it very clear the point wasn't about me, or my patch, it's about *their practices*.

DHH didn't refer to foreign-born because that's not what he was talking about. I made it very clear in the article that this is a perfectly valid definition of "native": "living or growing naturally in a particular region : indigenous".

You are not even trying to understand what DHH is saying.

This is the problem with modern discourse: people don't even listen. You don't care what DHH meant, all you care about is the hedges on speech you want to impose on others.

That's what wokeness does to open source projects.

I was banned from the RubyGems project by simply saying "no satisfactory resolution from the development team".

Now woke people are walking away from RubyGems because Ruby Central wants to align with DHH. I say good riddance.

Software should be about technical merit, not ideological agendas.

There's nothing racist there.

He's literally saying that britain is now bad because there's too many non-white people living there. Its kinda the definition of racism.

Also, of course, the rally he talks up is named after someone who is literally proud to be a racist.

If none of that triggers your moral compass, you may need to have it recalibrated.

> He's literally saying that britain is now bad because there's too many non-white people living there.

No, he didn't. That's something you are hallucinating he said.

> Now, I wouldn't dream of it. London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits.

Do elaborate on how exactly you tell if someone is a "native brit"? Who qualifies for such an honor?

That's not what you claimed. You not only claimed he said there are many non-white people, you claimed DHH *literally* said that's bad.

Wrong. You don't need a CoC to do moderation.

All CoC's are ever used for is to silence people the moderators don't like.

Autoritarian organizations never explain their reasons.

Wrong. The fork was planned since a long time ago.

There is Rust support and there is a couple of small drivers, that's about it.

The decision being disputed is not going to be affected by the shenanigans of Hector Martin, the process is going to be followed as usual.

David Airlie summarized it nicely:

> That is the process we are committed to, everyone has a voice and gets to be heard, and we move forward in the appropriate manner with each maintainer. Bypassing maintainers is the last resort, not engaging at all with maintainers isn't a productive way forward either. Your below attempt is trying to create a technical solution to a social problem.

So the technical discussion is going to continue in order to attempt consensus and the leadership (i.e. Linus Torvalds) is going to step in only if no consensus is achieved. He is waiting for the discussion to play out.

Everyone is going to be heard, including maintainers who openly admit they don't want Rust in linux.

Linus didn't say he was the problem, he said he should consider that maybe he was the problem.

That's an invitation to self-reflection.

We all should consider that, in every discussion.

The opposite is to think that everyone who disagrees is by definition wrong, which can never be productive.