[RandomThoughts3]

> I'm not arguing that what Kent did was right or wrong

You are actually arguing that it was right.

> The guy (Hocko) kept making mistake after mistake and Kent struggled to get him to do anything remotely net positive

That’s not really an excuse for abuse. This kind of comment is why we need a CoC committee in the first place. There is something deeply wrong when community members openly state that insulting other people is ok because they are not productive.

> You can't just fire them, so I understand the frustration here.

You can and should just ignore them. It is not mandatory to engage with people you disagree with and find unproductive especially on the internet where filtering them out is not that difficult.

Less extreme but also working is to just engage them less often. If you slow down the conversation, there is less space for them to annoy you.

[neycoda]

But he's not arguing that it's right. That's a proactive action, not a default reaction to not arguing it's wrong.

Kent's comment is on the line, but it doesn't look abusive. Frankly I'm more curious about the assertions rather than the phrasing, which I think is only the offensive part.

Did Michal make mistake after mistake? Did he assert that crashes are better than error handling? Did his comments or actions logically lead to that happening? That does matter in system robustness.

It seems the meat of the statements Kent made were not explored, merely that he said them harshly. Holding back development because someone wouldn't apologize publicly seems pedantic. If Kent is being hyperbolic, ie inaccurate, that's the bigger concern.