From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39548825 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C782E802 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 00:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 19:29:45 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20181108192945.37739fb1@vmware.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tech Board Discuss , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 08 Nov 2018 16:04:02 -0800 James Bottomley wrote: > Hi All, > > Several people have asked me to stand again for election to the TAB, so > I thought I'd give a general explanation of why that isn't going to > happen. For background: I was one of the people who lead the charge in > getting the Linux Foundation predecessor OSDL to create the TAB to give > developer input into what was then seen as a body trying to speak for > the Linux Kernel. I was actually TAB chair for 8 years from 2006 to > 2014. The job of the TAB, as I saw it, was to solve a lot of the > political friction issues around the places where the Linux Kernel > community interfaces with the Linux Foundation and Industry and in > those 8 years I gained quite a lot of expertise in political relations > trying to do that. > > However, TAB member and TAB chair aren't roles people are born to fill, > they're roles people have to grow into. What our community needs is > more people willing to grow into these roles to ensure effective > succession and if I stepped into one I'd be denying others that > opportunity, which would be bad both for succession planning and the > growth of the community in general. > > I think the reason I'm getting these requests is angst over this CoC > debate, so I'll go so far as to detail my political instincts over this > below ... if you've no interest in politics (as most of you won't have) > stop reading now. If you are interested, perhaps you should consider > standing for the TAB yourself. If I understand this correctly, this is your way of telling those that asked you to run for TAB that you are not doing so. > > James > > --- > > The biggest political mistake was actually doing anything with the > Linux Kernel CoC at all. The object was to deflect a highly > unfavourable article in the New Yorker. With hind sight, that could be > achieved simply by Linus' personal apology, statement that he was > stepping aside and going for assistance to understand others' emotions. > > Hind sight, though is always perfect. At the time, as a TAB member, Hind sight is actually far from perfect, because we really don't know what would have happened if we did things differently. -- Steve > all you saw was a panic driven by both Linus and the Linux Foundation > that we needed an updated Kernel CoC ASAP, like today. Panic is very > infectious so it can be extremely difficult in these circumstances to > stand up and say "stop, we need more information" ... and if you think > you'd be the one always to demand more information remember that > there's a time a decision has to be made and it always passes before > you can get complete information, so you'd basically be rendering the > TAB indecisive and useless. Recognising when it's time to stop and ask > for more data and when you have to make decisions with what you have is > a key political skill. > > The second mistake was picking the wrong CoC. I'm not talking about > the wording, which has been discussed on this list, but the politics > surrounding the choice: The original author of the current CoC was > unsupportive to the point of attacking the kernel community in public. > That drove a huge amount of me too attacks plus an equally large amount > of anti-me too hysteria and lead to enormous external awareness and > friction plus a not inconsiderable amount of unwelcome personal email > to various people. This could largely have been avoided by either > evolving our existing CoC through a community process or by picking a > CoC whose original author would be willing to stand up and be > supportive of our desire to change. > > The third mistake was dumping the fully formed CoC and a later update > into the tree with little to no community input which has generated a > lot of obvious anger within our community itself. All I'll say on this > is that revisiting the CoC is going to cause another huge cascade of > externally driven attacks which I think we'd all rather avoid, so if > you're still ticked, then perhaps you should channel that anger and > stand for the TAB ... > > _______________________________________________ > Tech-board-discuss mailing list > Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/tech-board-discuss