Many people here participate in open source development. The evolution of social trends of such development communities is important to members.
There has been discussion here about codes of conduct and what is acceptable behaviour. This case is significant in that the subject is being banned for the intensity of their academic argument and debate, rather than intolerant or plainly offensive behaviour.
Even worse, I've skimmed the discussions that precipitated the ban. I don't even understand why the ban was applied.
It's not as if the person couldn't take "no" for an answer; the administrators seem unable to give the person a definite "no" at all. Then they applied the "nuclear option" when they got exhausted, and made a public spectacle of the whole matter.
It is strange, and there must be some context that's left assumed and unstated. This ban document, even in conjunction with the linked examples, doesn't persuade me. If this is their best case I'm left scratching my head. (I understand that I'm not the target audience.)
This is an emerging cautionary tale for open source maintainers - don't take a multi-year source of feedback intent on improving your project and find three times their feedback was discussed and retroactively call that tiring and ban the person privately as publicly as possible.
Agreed. The archive appears to show it was meant to be a private/secret GitHub gist; which isn't really protected, because any user with the URL can view the content.
Wasn't meant for public dissemination most likely.
Why would mountain climbers be interested in reading about other climbers making mistakes and falling?
I imagine that some here have concerns and insecurities about how their comments and communication may likewise be interpreted, or misinterpreted. I suspect there is a not uncommon fear of unwittingly ending up in a similar situation.
It is not a well known term, confirmed by your need to define it. Obscure slang should not be used in sincere formal criticism of an individual's behaviour.
Additionally, the post is attempting to minimally justify the banning while assuming good-faith. It is not trying to denounce and condemn John De Goes.
http://web.archive.org/web/20190906122433/https://gist.githu...