Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15 2021, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > Anyway, I don't think I'll be participating in this topic any > further. It seems you're not interested in pursuing alternate approaches > that accomplish your goals, or in responding to specific point-by-point > feedback on your series from myself and others. > > I do think it would be a much better and respectful use of everyone's > time on this ML if you clearly stated your unwillingness to deviate from > the narrow approach in the initial version of a series you're > submitting. For what it's worth I also feel that's the case. 95% of my suggestions for improvement were completely ignored, and it's only when the maintainer threatened to merge my competing series, that I started receiving responses. I don't believe critical feedback has been welcomed, I don't believe my time as a reviewer was respected, and mostly it felt like talking to a wall. I find it ironic that a patch series that boasts of promoting inclusion and diversity completely ignores the most important diversity the project should care about: Diversity of thought. While claiming to be trying to avoid hypothetical people from feeling excluded, it actively excluded the opinions of actual people. -- Felipe Contreras
