Kent Overstreet, the lead developer of Bcachefs file system, has been banned from contributing to the Linux kernel for the duration of the 6.13 kernel development cycle. The ban, announced on November 22, 2024, is the result of a Code of Conduct violation stemming from an email exchange in September.
Kent was banned shortly after he expressed concerns about the uncertainty of Bcachefs in the Linux Kernel.
Table of Contents
The Code of Conduct and Its Enforcement
The Linux Kernel project has a Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct in place to foster a welcoming and inclusive environment.
This code outlines standards for behaviour, including the expectation of using welcoming and inclusive language, respecting different viewpoints, and gracefully accepting constructive criticism.
Unacceptable behaviours include personal or political attacks, public or private harassment, and the use of sexualized language. The Code of Conduct applies to all interactions related to the project, both online and offline.
Technical Disagreement Turns into Code of Conduct Violation
The email exchange in question, which occurred on a public Linux Kernel Mailing List, involved a technical disagreement between Kent Overstreet and another kernel developer, Michal Hocko.
While the specifics of the technical disagreement are not detailed in the email, the Code of Conduct Committee determined that Overstreet’s language in the email exchange constituted "written abuse" of Hocko.
Here's the excerpt of Kent's email exchange with Michal:
Michal, if you think crashing processes is an acceptable alternative to
error handling you have no business writing kernel code.You have been stridently arguing for one bad idea after another, and
it's an insult to those of us who do give a s**t about writing reliable
software.You're arguing against basic precepts of kernel programming.
Get your head examined. And get the f**k out of here with this s**t.
The Committee's Decision
The Committee noted that Overstreet had been given an opportunity to repair the damage caused by his conduct but had taken "insufficient action" to restore the community’s trust.
As a result, the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) of the Linux Kernel project approved a recommendation to restrict Overstreet’s participation in the project for the duration of the 6.13 kernel development cycle. This restriction means that all pull requests from Overstreet will be declined during this period.
Here's the Email from TAB to Kent:
Kent,
The Code of Conduct Committee received reports about your conduct in
this email discussion.Link to email where the violation took place:
https://lore.kernel.org/citv2v6f33hoidq75xd2spaqxf7nl5wbmmzma4wgmrwpoqidhj@k453tmq7vdrk
Our community works on trust and respect and has agreed to abide by the
Code of Conduct:Reference: https://docs.kernel.org/process/code-of-conduct.html
The code of Conduct Committee has determined that your written abuse
of another community member required action on your part to repair the
damage to the individual and the community. You took insufficient action
to restore the community's faith in having otherwise productive technical
discussions without the fear of personal attacks.Following the Code of Conduct Interpretation process the TAB has approved
has approved the following recommendation:-- Restrict Kent Overstreet's participation in the kernel development
process during the Linux 6.13 kernel development cycle.- Scope: Decline all pull requests from Kent Overstreet during the Linux 6.13 kernel development cycle.
Overstreet's Response
In response to the ban, Overstreet published the email he sent to Hocko in September, defending his actions.
In his email, Overstreet apologises for the heated nature of the exchange but argues that his reaction was justified by the technical issues at stake.
[…]
I do want to apologize for things getting this heated the other day, but
I need to also tell you why I reacted the way I did.
[…]
He states that he takes correctness issues "very seriously" and will "get frosty or genuinely angry" if they are ignored. He claims to have had "outrageous" fights over issues such as data corruption bugs in the past.
Overstreet's Vision for Technical Leadership
Overstreet asserts that his intention is not to roadblock anyone but to ensure that the kernel code is reliable.
He also expresses a desire to see more technical leadership in the kernel development community, suggesting that the memory management (MM) subsystem, in particular, has been lacking in this area.
He defines technical leadership as not about being "right" all the time, but about listening to and incorporating others’ ideas, saying "no" when necessary, and maintaining a broad perspective on the project. He concludes his email by encouraging Hocko to step up and contribute more to the MM subsystem.
The ban on Kent Overstreet has sparked discussion within the Linux Kernel community about the balance between maintaining a welcoming environment and allowing for passionate technical debate.
Your Thoughts?
We're curious to hear your thoughts on the recent ban of Kent Overstreet from the Linux kernel development. Do you think this ban was necessary? How do you feel about the balance between maintaining a welcoming environment and allowing for passionate technical debates?
Please share your valuable thoughts in the comment section below!
7 comments
Come on man, why did you title this “Banned From Linux Kernel Development” when you know full well that he wasn’t banned and even say “Temporarily Suspended” in the subtitle? I understand clickbait to a point but this isnt just clickbait, this is purposefully misleading.
A temporary ban is still a ban.
I’d like to know what Linus thinks about this.
Overstreet did use strong language, but there are plenty of Linus’s messages that were even stronger.
It is also my understanding that Linus has the final word on what gets into the kernel, so this ban is stepping over his responsibility.
More PC fascism overstepping…pathetic. Dump COC.
Why is it fascism, if Linux is a foundation, not a state?
I agree with Kent more based on what I have read in the email referenced. Kent was being honest about his arguments and trying to understand Michal’s view points, but Michal seem dismissive at every turn — mentioning another e-mail thread to dismiss Kent’s arguments without any reference, then refuses to clarify when asked. He just asserts his own opinions without acknowledging merits of Kent’s arguments. These are passive aggressive tactics that should also not be tolerated. In my opinion, both shoud suffer the same consequences, not just Kent.
It is clear from his tone in writing that Kent meant no malice in his writing, but are venting his frustration with Michal’s refusal to consider Kent’s viewpoints.
CoC enforcement like this is essentially rewarding passive aggressive behavior in what should have been an honest, open and respectful environment. While the latter is lacking on both sides, CoC enforcement as this is only going to hurt the former two….
Kent is clearly highlighting some deeper issues that exist in the overlay of egos, positions, bureaucracy and ideology growing within Linux governance that have been hindering development for many years.
His commentary expresses authentic effort and very reasonable desire to work with people. Unfortunately corruption creeps into groups of authority, especially when they abandon their own personal connectivity to other humans and operate on ideology and bureaucratic instruments.