Most OSS projects have a scale of expectation for external contributors depending on what they propose, either implied or written (like in [^0]). A hypothetical but likely scale would be from typo/docs fixes (lowest), bugfixes, new features, to CI/CD and release workflow (highest). Generally, the wider audience your patch might influence, the more you are expected to know about the project itself, its workflow, collaboration, best practices, code quality and maturity, etc. in the first place.

I agree that banning people without prior communication is rude, but looking at OP's PR[^1], I tend to concur with lodash maintainers this time. The PR gets no description, no explanation, and no prior discussion or RFCs. It adds a totally new GitHub Actions pipeline, while lodash isn't even using GitHub Actions now. It contains various fixup commits that should be squashed. One commit has a super long subject that should be split up. OP here went straight to the top level to propose a brand new release workflow, but the lodash maintainers obviously didn't consider them to be ready for such contributions.

These are common mistakes every contributor would make in the beginning, and I don't think the maintainers meant it personal. As many other comments have pointed out, by choosing an easier task, getting familiar with the workflow, and building trust, OP can get their patch landed.

[^0]: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/comm...

[^1]: https://github.com/lodash/lodash/pull/6014