From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B91019BB7 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 16:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9844BC433CD; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 16:22:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1692462129; bh=7NftGz+RY9f9Ajl5FaqpP+570seasZAMre3cPy9w5H4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ws+ZEVjK8UgNaooXuhguBRV7D27nM1f6GFQ9CaGJohFvBrTw8ZRFpPowjvW9oxo2m WUyafpINkL6Cx0b2KNCJbN0wvZG1lkRbExSS4FcrOpIOhUqBZdsJ2xKpcM77j3YLDq L5SgL4mG/V7rcvTborWNl/aWQvTTQEDFhKGZFxd6nWvyLZ+N7UVdyLEP/sUn99rsCf vDq5emJCGoamR6Hl9eesYGgBW/BAMZCt0q8Bn0YWsD/3Nn1EWMzaDz8tBgb6pdTLWu GNinlqbg4PrG3C14tztRoH2DifjSkE02Cf4GHbRmVawEVGf/AN3qEq1yORTyh+I/3i +kCx3S1CF+CpA== Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2023 18:22:02 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: Linus Torvalds Cc: ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Transparency when rejecting patches without technical reason Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aB+2iWZCVGDGbVS2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --aB+2iWZCVGDGbVS2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi Linus, > This wasn't even remotely a gray area. It's not worth discussing. I hope you understood that my wish for transparency was not about discussing if the patches should have gone in or not. It is about discussing or at least stating which reasons we have for not accepting patches. From the netdev maintainers reply, I couldn't understand if being "uncomfortable" was because of personal or juristic reasons. As a result, I was unsure what to do if such patches would have landed in my subsystem. If it was personal, then I may or may not have a different opinion, OK. If it was jurisitc, then it might be wise to follow their expertise. Of course, I could have asked the netdev maintainers. But if it is written right away, it makes things easier, or so I thought... Regards, Wolfram --aB+2iWZCVGDGbVS2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEOZGx6rniZ1Gk92RdFA3kzBSgKbYFAmTg7CQACgkQFA3kzBSg KbZX4xAAobjsleFaKsU1Yf20NCuSO6KxWmTOCSU5fGdg2nlHqFcGcdLF4XEOaO7n LmlpK8YOQngwU/MPk/H+tO0dTBs0kXxZDt5fPHUUzSIMxfWsFClb6UsIvhhP4QXm waOWIC3GvgihkBjIZ+CGdcIb7q0sdIZEd/fTXBJXKirsMJupfdmC8vOelGlm56nm gpqS+DhPd7ArV9VsUlRwxKyZ9yRngv/MA4igovXqeiXJGOVErX9x9b1ABpGwFbe+ SqqK1+zbJjwiwSHOAf9FTMJiknXvnO7VB161h2Qp4afCm9KFuWyNl1PfHXE0Zhj2 dhKQT5s7HGEDRhFU1s2vdnYWaYYWyiz4UL4fZs4jKfVHiAaru+U8FaayV1y6J+m5 swX1/Xqy0VkKg8MBVdbODJbU/+KLxUkWSU8B+LSelMrLyH2OVcwQoxC5KWvaBBA4 Q+khGKhUmxrsgfdOigJEifKCHsw/tqzQi/40La9XulkO+LK3miAHk7iFG5oEh0Xk jEDJ+ADS9Q8/Ly+QzKYxcTxs2mAWrxlY3RL1TAEihYVKCP9W+MYHXs3V4hv2zRXx HVtyqNK2X28gSDKiwREqYviCmUxaBXzk75Lut0zRITs/UilISZfSbu5IXWpbWM98 7dumOnCiWC+Y9Vs12kmZlFSHUmtP7hzYYl6bfPG73MoezgKAy5M= =7KqA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --aB+2iWZCVGDGbVS2--