Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

On Tue, Jun 15 2021, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:

Anyway, I don't think I'll be participating in this topic any
further. It seems you're not interested in pursuing alternate approaches
that accomplish your goals, or in responding to specific point-by-point
feedback on your series from myself and others.

I do think it would be a much better and respectful use of everyone's
time on this ML if you clearly stated your unwillingness to deviate from
the narrow approach in the initial version of a series you're
submitting.

For what it's worth I also feel that's the case. 95% of my suggestions
for improvement were completely ignored, and it's only when the
maintainer threatened to merge my competing series, that I started
receiving responses.

I don't believe critical feedback has been welcomed, I don't believe my
time as a reviewer was respected, and mostly it felt like talking
to a wall.

I find it ironic that a patch series that boasts of promoting inclusion
and diversity completely ignores the most important diversity the
project should care about:

Diversity of thought.

While claiming to be trying to avoid hypothetical people from feeling
excluded, it actively excluded the opinions of actual people.

-- 
Felipe Contreras