Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Google cloud.

Your comment in this thread is the first time I've seen anyone mention that it was being worked on since... June 2021? This despite repeatedly raising the issue up until I was banned without explanation. I was never told, and still don't know, what disabling the refresh entails, the ban prevents me from discussing the matter further, and I was under the impression that no one was working on it. We have suffered a serious communication failure in this incident. That said, I am looking forward to your follow-up email and seeing this issue resolved in a timely and amicable manner.

> the ban prevents me from discussing the matter further

Hi ddevault, FWIW, in May 2022 on that #44577 issue [0] you had opened, it looks like someone on the core Go team commented there [1] recommending that you email the golang-dev mailing list or email them directly.

Separately, it looks like in July 2022, in one of the issues tracking the new friendlier -reuse flag, there was a mention [2] of the #44577 issue you had opened. In the normal course, that would have triggered an automatic update on your #44577 issue... but I suspect because that #44577 issue had been locked by one of the community gardeners as "too heated", that automatic update didn't happen. (It looks like it was locked due to a series of rapid comments from people unrelated to Sourcehut, including about “scummy behavior”).

Of course, communication on large / sprawling open source projects is never quite perfect, but that's a little extra color...

[0] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/44577

[1] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/44577#issuecomment-11378...

[2] https://github.com/golang/go/issues/53644#issuecomment-11751...

The offer in [1] was to email the ML to ask for an exclusion, not to continue discussing the general issue which was still being discussed in the GH issue.

And given that they banned him for no reason, he is perfectly in the right to tell them that they should email him instead.

Correct: it was made clear to me in no uncertain terms that the only thing I was allowed to say was "yes" or "no" to this offer.

The comment above just said that you were banned "for no reason", and you've replied to it "correct". But there is a pretty clear reason you were banned, isn't there?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34312016

"Correct" isn't the right response here, is it? Like, you don't know the reason you were banned, but it's not as if there is no imaginable reason you would have been.

> the appropriate response is different for "I saw this in my logs and it looks weird but it's not bothering me" versus "this is causing serious problems for my site". We have been getting mixed signals about which it is

We have not been reading the same tickets and articles it seems

No problems were ever mentioned, serious or otherwise. Elevated traffic isn't automatically a problem. Drew's played it up quite a lot elsewhere, but the Go team can only be reasonably expected to follow the one issue filed, not Drew's entire online presence.

You mean the issue they banned him from? ;-)

Yes. He had plenty of opportunity to state problems if they existed. Relaying harm caused would have likely accelerated things, and if harm was being done he would have taken up the still-open offer to solve this problem in the interim while the real solution is pushed out instead of writing misrepresentative and openly salty blog posts for years. Even with him being banned, the Go team is still tracking this issue, still brings it up internally, and has pushed a feature that would fix this ahead by an entire release.

So yes. The issue they banned him from. Because reality's more complicated than flippant one liners.