The most recent GitHub ban was technically public (I can give a world-viewable link to the statement by a person with org admin access that the ban occurred), but some people didn’t notice.
Well, actually, this is a good point to discuss @coretemp situation then.
From what I could find in my Maildir, it seems to have started with nix copy uses too much memory · Issue #1681 · NixOS/nix · GitHub by @coretemp, which, IMHO, is absolutely reasonable, I agree that closing an issue without any comment in response to a question is rude.
True, the question itself nix copy uses too much memory · Issue #1681 · NixOS/nix · GitHub was formulated a bit rudely, something like “ping” would have been enough, IMHO, but the way the issue was silently closed in response was also rude, IMHO.
This was then followed by nix copy uses too much memory · Issue #1681 · NixOS/nix · GitHub by @domenkozar, which I can totally read as “You want to know if and when this was fixed? Do the research yourself or pay someone to provide support, we are not required to do this for free.” Which is factually correct. But, well … I wouldn’t call this “nice” either.
Then, there was “Nix/Nixpkgs/NixOps maintenance plan” https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nix-nixpkgs-nixops-maintenance-plan/1204/1 (Message-ID: topic/1204@discourse.nixos.org) by @Coretemp which started with
All I see are good PRs that stay open for months. One of the reasons I don’t write patches is because there is a line of about 1000
PRs that need to be closed in all these projects combined.
The rest of the conversation was also pretty reasonable, IMHO (I, too, was frustrated by the slowness of Nixpkgs PR merged before, but then I changed my git workflow to make “many patchsets in the queue” scenario easier and added some automation, now things look better, but what to do with “hanging” not-quite-ready PR’s is a good question still, but that’s offtopic here). Then @domenkozar wrote
As someone who has been contributing to Nix for about 5 years, I have to say such posts only demotivate me and I have zero
motivation right now to help you out, sorry. I will say a few words about this post.[…]
What I do not understand is how you think insulting people that have contributed thousands of hours is actually not the destruction
of human capital? The fact that registration was open for more than half a year and you blame organizers for your slow acting
(note, attendee limit was known from the day that conference was announced), shows much you really value self-criticism that you’re
asking us for.The thing that I’m interested about is discussing at NixCon after reading this post is CoC and how we treat each other and set the
standards straight. Please consider this as my expression of frustration over such non-constructive posts and that I’m not OK with
them.
and then censored the whole thread by saying
I realize I also have violated the guidelines themselves, so as per FAQ - NixOS Discourse I suggest we lock/close
this thread as nothing good can come out of this.
I think this was an overreaction.
Which triggered “Censorship issues” https://discourse.nixos.org/t/censorship-issues/1218/1 (Message-ID: topic/1218@discourse.nixos.org) by @Coretemp, which, again, was censored…
I can totally see why @coretemp was frustrated by this point.
Then, there was commit access · Issue #50889 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub which, again, should have been less charged, IMHO, but given the above censorship of thread that discussed governance I can understand where this was coming from.
Which was followed by commit access · Issue #50889 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub. I have no idea why was this the “last warning” already, I seem to have no other in-between interactions between @coretemp and @domenkozar in my Maildir.
Which then triggered Threats from @domenkozar · Issue #51078 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub with all that ensured.
Up to that issue @domenkozar was at least as much at fault as @coretemp. Actually, I think, more, because nix copy uses too much memory · Issue #1681 · NixOS/nix · GitHub is as much passive-aggressive as commit access · Issue #50889 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub, and given the fact that @domenkozar censored @coretemp’s threads, and especially since @domenkozar had owner rights to NixOS org which he threatened to use against @coretemp out of the blue. “With great power comes great responsibility.”
True, Threats from @domenkozar · Issue #51078 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub was an overreaction by @coretemp. But I can totally see why @coretemp thought he was bullied by @domenkozar by that point. What seems to be a permanent ban of @coretemp, IMHO, is, to say the least, is not fair. Especially given the fact that @coretemp was contributing A. Whole. Lot. before.
So, shouldn’t @coretemp by unbanned by now?
All in all, firstly, I’m very much displeased by the fact that this discourse is censored so much. Sure, Maildir saves everything, but the fact that I can’t link to those threads is concerning. Secondly, similarly I don’t like the fact that related GitHub issues are frequently permanently locked to committers only. This makes things hard to discuss before or just after everything blows up.
Thirdly, I hope everyone can see the urgent need for a separate system of appeals to fix overreactions like this as soon as possible in the future. @coretemp, as far as I can see, was banned both from GitHub org and this discourse. Where should have he made an appeal himself?
