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 681A52C0A for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:57:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A611AFD for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:57:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id q12-v6so14821198qkl.13 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20181016021254.GA21220@thunk.org> <1539702797.2805.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181016180010.GC4367@localhost> <1539713962.2805.41.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181016184604.GB4121@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20181016184604.GB4121@localhost> From: Daniel Vetter Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:57:29 +0200 Message-ID: To: Josh Triplett Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: James Bottomley , Tim.Bird@sony.com, ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:48 PM Josh Triplett wrote: > > 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). Just to clarify: This ain't about me (I'm booked out already anyway), but there are a bunch of drm people there already anyway for elc. So it's definitely not a travel logistics issue, and last year there was a discussion about whom we're going to volunteer instead of Dave. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch