Maybe not being nice is part of the immune system of open source.
Talk about predictive power in a hypothesis.
Getting banned from contributing is a light penalty.
It is pretty comfortably not sabotage under 18 USC 105, which requires proving intent to harm the national defense of the United States. Absent finding an email from one of the researchers saying "this use-after-free is gonna fuck up the tankz," intent would otherwise be nearly impossible to prove.
There is absolutely zero evidence of this. None. In my opinion it's baseless speculation.
It's far more likely that they are upset over being called out, and are out of touch with regards as to what is ethical testing.
"Well if you're gonna be a jerk about it, I won't be sending any more patches."
If not you get cluttered up with bad code and people there for the experience. Like how stackoverflow is lost to rule zealots there for the game not for the purpose.
Something big and important should be intimidating and isn’t a public service babysitter...
If I have a community, bombarded by a random number of transient bad actors at random times, then if R0 > some threshold, my community inevitably trends to a cesspool, as each bad actor creates more negative members.
If I take steps to decrease R0, one of which may indeed be "blunt- and harshness to new contributors", then my community may survive in the face of equivalent pressures.
It's a valid point, and seems to have historical support via evidence of many egalitarian / welcoming communities collapsing due to the accumulation of bad faith participants.
The key distinction is probably "Are you being blunt / harsh in the service of the primary goal, or ancillary to the mission?"
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_reproduction_number
Could you provide references to some of this historical support?
You don't need to do that by telling them they're garbage. You can do it by getting them invested in growth and improvement.
also here we are seeing persons are having no interest in "growth and improvement", they are not even creating the good faith contributions to project.
Like?
Someone for whom being a bad actor is a day job will not get deterred by being told to fuck off.
Being nasty might deter some low key negative contributors - maybe someone who overestimates their ability or someone "too smart to follow the rules". But it might also deter someone who could become a good contributor.
If you ran a bank and had a bunch of rude bank tellers, you are only going to dissuade customers, not bank robbers.
Sustaining the belief that every submitter is an earnest, good, and altruistic person is painfully expensive and a waste of very valuable minds. Unhinged is unhinged and that needs to be managed, but keeping up the farce that there is some imaginary universe where the submitter is not wasting your time and working the process is wrong.
I see this in architecture all the time, where people feign ignorance and appeal to this idea you are obligated to keep up the pretense that they aren't being sneaky. Competent people hold each other accountable. If you can afford civility, absolutely use it, but when people attempt to tax your civility, impose a cost. It's the difference between being civil and harmless.
This is just a form of "well I'll just take my business elsewhere!". Chances are he'll try again under a pseudonym.
EDIT: University is fair game too.
The idea that "not being nice" is necessary is plainly ridiculous, but this post is pretty wild--effectively you're implying that they're just amateurs or something and that this is a novel idea nobody's considered, while billions and billions of dollars of business run atop Linux-powered systems.
What they don't do is hand over CI resources to randos submitting patches. That's why kernel developers receive and process those patches.
