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

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 06:38:10PM +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.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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.

Thank you, Tim.

I would agree with Tim's point here: I'm not suggesting changing the
invitee list (other than that I'd hoped to see Daniel going as well),
I'm suggesting that that invitee list is conducive to discussion but not
decision, and that those who are there should treat it accordingly (as a
discussion forum and not a decision forum).