Banned from bugs.chromium.org

[guest271314]

from:	Elly Fong-Jones [email protected]
to:	guest271314 [email protected]
cc:	[email protected],[email protected]
date:	Oct 28, 2021, 12:07 PM
subject:	Re: [community] Banned from bugs.chromium.org
mailed-by:	chromium.org
signed-by:	chromium.org

Hi,

You were banned from Monorail because, after a previous thread (on 2021-06-17) warned you specifically about both moderating your tone and staying on-topic in Chromium spaces, you continued making posts like many of those on issue 1131236 (which required intervention from a moderator at comment 61) and issue 1254496 comment 19 (since deleted). In particular, this paragraph is not respectful and kind:

"""
I suggest you fix this and stop passing the buck and thinking individuals in the field cannot figure out when old code is being re-used for supposed new code. Most people are lazy, but again, WebCodecs was originally and still advertises "flexibility" - therefore there should not e4ven be a discussion here if that is truly the mission statement. Now, if it is just the private playground of a few Chrome authours and specification authors, then perhaps it makes sense to just reject improvement suggestions, but that means the claim of flexibility fails and is false when tested.
"""

The following comment on that issue is also largely quotations from historical figures and is not on topic for our bug tracker.

Separately from that, and independent of the decision to ban you (which was made on the basis of your repeated code of conduct violations) the community team has at this point received six separate requests from other contributors to either have oversight over or directly intervene in response to your posts on either bugs or mailing lists. That should suggest (to you) that your approach to collaboration is not working particularly well in Chromium.

-- elly

from:	guest271314 [email protected]
to:	Elly Fong-Jones [email protected]
date:	Oct 28, 2021, 5:31 PM
subject:	Re: [community] Banned from bugs.chromium.org
mailed-by:	gmail.com

I contest your characterization of my constructive feedback concerning your API's bugs that I report to you. I notify you when your gear is broken.

I stand by my constructive feedback as to WebCodecs implementation. You cannot verify if your own code is working. Godel proved that and is precisely on topic.

I did not call anybody out of their names.

I vet your implementations. That is my interest. Not your individual sensitivities that have nothing to do with your broken code.

You banning me just proves my assessment that your organization is a closed-loop system, incapable of receiving and acting on constructive feedback.

You folks seriously need to consider getting off your would-be high horse, and stop taking yourselves so importantly at the same time - as if can't nobody tell you your code is broken and you are not getting it. Else, you will never fix the bugs that are self-evident, because you ban the individuals that bring your flaws to your attention, sweep glaring bugs under the rug, blame the field operator who tells you your gear is broken and thus your expectations are flawed - because I tested your gear thoroughly and have empirical evidence to prove my claims.

You banning me does not fix the bugs I filed, nor the ones I commented on where I provided field test feedback.

/guest271314/