The problem is that both camps take their positions as religious righteousness, which lobotomizes their abilities to have productive, pros and cons discussions about matters at hand.
The internet/apps of the last 20 years have not exactly boosted people's ability to think critically and set aside their passions though.
Much easier to keep eyeballs glued and sell them ads if you encourage their baser impulses.
This is rsync we are talking about. A bug in rsync basically means lost data and/or unreliable backups.
I think it's normal to be pissed at lost data. Maybe it's not socially acceptable to spit in the face of a volunteer but it's 100% human to feel annoyed by an obvious drop in code quality.
There must be some degree of communication from customers to developers. Even if it is a free volunteer service.
Poor communication results in professionals firing the customer as well. None of this is exclusive to OSS of volunteer effort. But the communication in general is necessary.
This is just product management and communication issues. There is an perceived problem and the problem MUST be communicated.
Problems aren't solved by shutting up and ignoring things. And based on the discussion in this topic, it's clear there's a lot of people who are worried about rsync code quality here.
Look, it's not that long time ago when we had the xz malware. The pattern is always the same. Maintainer of the project is doing X, people start to pressure them to do something else, maintainer gives up and opens the project up to other maintainers, and then many things can happen. If there is any lesson from the incident, open source maintainers should never allow the pressure to happen, ignore it if it's too strong, block people. Rsync has been maintained for a very long time. Bugs happen, even regression bugs happen. People don't get to dictate how should the volunteer do development.
Before you call yourself a customer of an FOSS project, perhaps show us the receipt that a monetary transaction had actually taken place between you and the developer.
Otherwise, you're just a beggar. And beggars don't get to choose.
If committing thousands of lines of unreviewed AI generated code is "doing their best", I'd argue that them not contributing anymore would be a net benefit for the project.
You might want to use different term. After all, Trump derangement syndrome turned out to be "people who actually listen to him and say truth about him".
X-derangement thing is not used in reference to people whobare wrong or lying, but in reference to people who are making correct observations