Has anyone got some background information on this?
Some background: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00069.html
[Disclaimer: I helped with the evaluation and drafting of this particular TC decision, to try to mitigate any potential fallout, and make sure that this particular decision didn't cause any harm; in particular, I wrote clause 3 and 4 of the decision, and suggested what turned into clause 6. However, I think Anthony Towns has it right: "The tech ctte could've addressed this issue by providing policy guidance or by just offering advice, and assuming that the systemd maintainers would act on the advice or policy in good faith. Choosing to override the systemd maintainers was far from the most friendly available option."]
This mail is useful as well: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00754.html
"This is what many still (retorically) wonder about: we the systemd maintainers did not reject that change, so it is not clear (or, it is) why the TC had to be involved."
It isn't about this one decision, either; as with the previous TC decision, this is more the last straw. Maintaining systemd is a difficult enough task without heaps of people piling on.
"I don't agree with them (at least not fully), but my resignation from the maintainer team is not about people being skeptical, it's about personal attacks, it's about death wishes from project members and it's about people escalating conflicts instead of trying to resolve them."
Seriously, people sending _death wishes_ to developer or maintainers of software who's decisions/directions they disagree with? They need to be publicly named so I can easily find that out when I Google them when their CV hits my desk. That's _so_ not OK. I would refuse to have those people on any team of mine - no matter how excellent your grades, no matter how lofty your achievements, your CV just gets thrown out, you won't even get a call back explaining why.
It would probably be best not to perpetuate these things and to just end the vitriol now.
Edit: Thank you. I was under the impression that the emails were addressed specifically to you, not a mailing list.
In other words, your post came off as a bit self important.
I certainly didn't intend to imply I'm head of HR aT Google or SpaceX, but at he same time it wasn't intended to be about me (and turning it around that way the judging it based on 3 a year out of date HN bio or LinkedIn profile still doesn't make it about me).
How do you suggest that "we" (these people's peers) should deal with behavior like hat?