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 1DA864A4 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 04:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2EBE80F for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2018 04:44:27 +0000 (UTC) From: NeilBrown To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Frank Rowand Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:44:18 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20181111055728.GC12818@thunk.org> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> <3b861369-0fc0-c746-4b1b-047ce903cc30@gmail.com> <20181111055728.GC12818@thunk.org> Message-ID: <87o9auvra5.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: James Bottomley , 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: , --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 11 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:18:00PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: >> OK. So the update was done in an opaque closed fashion, which involved >> soliciting input from some unknown fraction of the community. Do I >> understand that correctly? >>=20 >> And I think it would be fair to say that the people who created the >> update were probably aware of the comments of a much larger group of >> people who had participated in the threads on various email lists, >> and also I suspect the comments threads on the related lwn articles. >> So likely also based on input from a (probably) larger fraction of >> the community who had been willing to publicly comment. >>=20 >> So based on community input, but the document was not reviewed by the >> broader community, or accepted by the broader community. > > "Community" is a very slippery term. I will note that there were > *many* people who were participating on the threads, sometimes in very > non-constructive or in a downright toxic fashion, who had zero commits > in recent years. In some cases, it was zero commits, *ever*. I > recall doing the research on one prolific author and found that while > he did contribute the kernel, it was 3 or 4 commits... ~5 years > ago... to a driver. > > And then there was one person who admitted that while he was just a > user, he insisted he had a right to weigh in the issue. They > certainly have the right to have that belief, of course. Whether or > not maintainers are obliged to cater to people with those beliefs is a > very different question, however. > > There seems to be an assumption that a open, public discussion will > always give you the best review. Maybe not, but it does help create a sense of community. It encourages people to feel valued and included. The new CoC suggests that our standards include * Focusing on what is best for the community Is having a perfect CoC best for the community? Or is having an open process best, even when it produces a suboptimal result? NeilBrown --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEG8Yp69OQ2HB7X0l6Oeye3VZigbkFAlvpBSIACgkQOeye3VZi gbkf5Q/+JvlMIIrTa8jeQd4yXsMbRtFraEZvfnR48ohuspDUz4OOV1Dwiysm2bbc RISPzw7CHBfLx1nvJtN0xIfSfkNEa9xsVMX++yyjdot/dDYvSaNbImVUhZveLDqy I93dOrdsyJFn9sr2Qkwt3Kz0OLL5iZXDygMQOjN6jHnTFI2n1PBWZroIpoge/rIt ZXFQlbGAlF5VbmEnn0Cu494OryKbYUBgxZNXiErOQ/2l0XySpPoT6Evq04TcScLN Cz17H48EHMdLYVxQAhbhfxHoyHklvW/lBrjWF7+x0K520hesEwhCd5m8gjo0jwba 8Zf49PgiD+nI1rLZ/wcTRu6iND7/XKgU31RfMrXlCoq/7ccJIR6elNZo7dv6hfDS ehlrFOepxfkEbhGjDIVAliKk7PN0siErfRo3Zsp7lxXyKS0oLTxKSrshQVZ4Ab6v N2W8KGCS+7ff/4E3FLSfOSzJ/X2kyx3DzXHl40c1OqNBbmb2vUA1WH4D/N1z9jrS LzF7LlUPaf4yd6hCsgbZXvlZswS9+Jox5q0j9gd3reUCDv74BHkjtRQdk8BF0XDV PMrh4/9T6SfzP8XoWUuso7GP+CEYkX/1Ak7/g32SfqKs4McxtR/VtiVWqta1uTBQ RRtCIEz0zZhK57OPPlRbaqeVLY9EJQ1rDM0PpbCqH6EsgfuOQbA= =s162 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--