The ones playing political games dressing them up as technical ones are the worst:

“My approach is technically correct and I won’t change it even though it causes issues down the line”. I’ve seen this a lot in the Gnome/Wayland world.

> I don't think people get into kernel maintenance to play politics.

I’m not a kernel developer and the projects I’ve worked on haven’t even been that big, but even there it was necessary to cater to multiple stakeholders and consider multiple viewpoints. I’d go as far as saying that software development in general gets pretty political pretty quickly, as soon as you depend on somebody else’s work or somebody else depends on yours. Every decision will impact somebody and different options will do so differently - these are political considerations.

I can’t imagine this being less of an issue in the kernel.

No, I'm not saying the politics is a no brainer. I'm saying there is a logical barrier to the project succeeding, and it is the name. Other people refuse to work with it using the current name, people who would make it a much more useful product. Deciding it's not a TECHNICAL problem is an emotional decision, because you're not reframing it from what it is, a barrier to success, to something it's not, a non-issue. They're deciding not to engage with the hard problem.

it's not the exact opposite, saying that the technical aspects are more important than the political ones is an emotional stance, not a logical one.