From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D213F86C
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:52:53 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:52:47 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: NeilBrown <neil@brown.name>
Message-ID: <20181023045247.GV32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com>
	<87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
	<20181021222608.GA24845@localhost>
	<875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
	<20181023033130.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
	<87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	Mishi Choudhary <mishi@linux.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of
 Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:25:08PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:

> >> If Linus is not true to his new-found sensitivity, we might need someone
> >> (Greg?) to be a co-maintainer, able to accept patches when Linus has a
> >> relapse.  It might be good form to create this channel anyway, but I
> >> doubt it would be needed in practice.
> >> 
> >> So there you have it. The "Code" is upside down.
> >> We need documents which:
> >>   - curtail the power of the strong, starting with Linus
> >>   - are adopted willingly by individuals, not imposed on the community.
> >>   - provide alternate routes for patch-flow, so that no-one has ultimate
> >>     power.
> >
> > Really?  The ultimate power being to say "No" to a patch, and nobody should
> > have such?  Are you fucking serious?
> 
> I have noticed of late a tendency in all sorts of different people to
> hear/read a statement from someone they know, interpret it a particular
> way, be surprised about that interpretation, and persist with believing
> that interpretation anyway, rather than realizing that the most likely
> explanation is a communication failure, and asking for clarification.
> 
> The "ultimate power" is the ability to say "no" to a patch, *with no
> opportunity for review*.  Two people together having that ultimate power
> is a totally different thing to one person having it alone.

If that's a clarification, I'm sorry to say that I understand you even less now.
What are you proposing?  Duopoly?  How do you deal with disagreements?  Fork?
Revert wars?

Frankly, CoC as-is is a bloody awful idea wide-open to abuses, but what you
are proposing feels even more incoherent...