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 82C5F2A3B for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:38:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam01on0093.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.32.93]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9EA07EB for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:38:15 +0000 (UTC) From: To: , Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:38:10 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181016021254.GA21220@thunk.org> <1539702797.2805.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20181016180010.GC4367@localhost> <1539713962.2805.41.camel@HansenPartnership.com> In-Reply-To: <1539713962.2805.41.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Draft Maintainer's Summit Agenda and Attendees List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > -----Original Message----- > From: James Bottomley >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 sec= tion has a little more implication of mal intent that I'd prefer. I think you c= an 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.=20 That's OK with me. I'm not invited either. -- Tim