Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the response from Dr Greg to Linus, https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/20250207121638.GA7356... adds some interesting insights. There seems to be some issue with unaccountable maintainers, and that’s a problem for innovation. If you can’t even get to the point of “technical debate” (we aren’t interested, sorry), then what hope innovation? These are “people problems”, and there are no easy or good answers,…
The short of his rant is that he wants a "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC, in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way." Yikes, this is EXACTLY what Linus was talking about except an order of magnitude worse!
This does not read as a rant at all to me. Rather it seeks to highlight a problem using an example from his own work and proposes a possible solution (with a previous caveat of “I don’t know how to fix this”).
> "Code Of Standards for maintainers" in addition to a CoC
He wants maintainers to behave in some pre-determined understandable fashion. He wants some accountability, and that seems reasonable to me. This is not a “maintainers must do what I want”, this is “let’s set basic expectations” and ensure people follow them. Whatever those should be.
> in order to witch hunt people he feels "gets in the way."
B does not follow A. You are simply straw-manning here, so I have nothing to say to it other than it’s a fallacious point.