[lll-o-lll]

> The short of his rant…

This does not read as a rant at all to me. Rather it seeks to highlight a problem using an example from his own work and proposes a possible solution (with a previous caveat of “I don’t know how to fix this”).

> "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC

He wants maintainers to behave in some pre-determined understandable fashion. He wants some accountability, and that seems reasonable to me. This is not a “maintainers must do what I want”, this is “let’s set basic expectations” and ensure people follow them. Whatever those should be.

> in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."

B does not follow A. You are simply straw-manning here, so I have nothing to say to it other than it’s a fallacious point.

[robertlagrant]

> This is not a “maintainers must do what I want”, this is “let’s set basic expectations” and ensure people follow them. Whatever those should be.

But presumably it's not whatever they should be. It's what he wants them to be. And what should happen if they're not followed?

[rincebrain]

His complaint is, in essence, that people will block technical proposals for nontechnical reasons, and that attempts to resolve this result in people complaining that you're talking about nontechnical things at all.

Few people like dealing with interpersonal conflict. They want to think that technical meritocracy wins the arguments.

But in that discussion, a maintainer said "I am going to try to sabotage this because I hate it.", and there's no technical argument to resolve that. And there's not really any route other than escalation to some kind of authority if there's not a common negotiation baseline.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into."