Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 18:38 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Bottomley
> > 
> > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:00 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:13:17AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 10:11 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > >  And I don't see anyone else from an external community with
> > > > > real experience (or someone who does consulting in this area)
> > > > > invited to fill that gap either.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't buy the narrative that you must be a CoC consultant or
> > > > implementor to make a difference.
> > > 
> > > We typically don't make major changes in a specialized domain
> > > without consulting domain experts, to avoid building a solution
> > > that won't work or ignores well-known issues in that domain. We
> > > wouldn't go off and build a virtualization subsystem without
> > > consulting virtualization experts; we wouldn't build a storage
> > > subsystem without consulting storage experts; we wouldn't hack on
> > > a license without consulting legal experts; the same applies
> > > here.
> > 
> > I notice you carefully cut the part about people who've been active
> > in helping the kernel in this regard already being present;
> 
> I think that characterizing Joshes response as having "carefully cut"
> a section has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd
> prefer.  I think you can reiterate your point about having people
> there that you consider to be domain experts present, without this.

OK, if that was unintentional I apologise for the misinterpretation and
overreaction. I suppose I'm sensitised by the fact that I've seen too
many people spend a huge amount of effort on this for zero recognition.

> > so we do have some domain experts ... plus no external ones have
> > actually been proposed at this point.
> 
> It seemed pretty obvious to me that Daniel was referring to himself
> or someone else from the subsystem (DRM?) that's already adopted
> the CoC.  But a more explicit recommendation (like a candidate name)
> would add clarity to the discussion.
> 
> > We also don't usually listen deferentially to domain experts ...
> > spectre and meltdown would be a case in point here.
> 
> You don't have to be deferential to domain experts to benefit
> from their experience.
> 
> Having said that, I don't think a short face-to-face session is going
> to yield much in the way changes, and the list of invitees was worked
> out already over a long period of time.   And as you stated
> previously there will be other venues (both face-to-face and online)
> to add input to the process.

Agreed, his is why I think the proposed KS/Plumbers session will be far
more important: it's in front of a much wider audience at an open
conference.

James


> Personally I don't see much benefit in changing the invitee list at
> this point, and some dangers.  Not everyone who wants to be there
> can.  That's OK with me.  I'm not invited either.
>  -- Tim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>