From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pl1-f170.google.com (mail-pl1-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E821136D for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 02:44:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f170.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1bf1935f6c2so37081695ad.1 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:44:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fromorbit-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1695091445; x=1695696245; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DaQ7S4Czgw55gMOMG3g0mH+EVG0KMgeQe9X7+ZUKWE4=; b=H+5eyZMj06kEmDeDfZmWnPnsABuJezLah1AxO8QUnCqoQXgirrqWVEn3vxfTVGDWN8 XvfR0IucsxN0r7UOG0No5njNT2HovHOAz9nskMtz7k/keGHaoJvtpy150dHuKAFLsHaQ AHJCIQI6fYJVahfLHGGlHssKBcgrJ1EmuCvIeHGWrHB+1D5CaoidzIetn5MPLhsiJWs8 K3HAHhgYYW4EKKJh2ZXBO6/ZYXV19ySVkcKTlIffljS/lRcatRwXRgvBOUpDJCmlJbzu UG+f6+K5OnRhB6hI7NC9kS1ETGcAg4bIH4fuRb4rhcSI4zVppjQ6FodwSb4dekkzC+JF ZzPQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695091445; x=1695696245; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DaQ7S4Czgw55gMOMG3g0mH+EVG0KMgeQe9X7+ZUKWE4=; b=Wx6GOlJQv6ZZ9CCPPTiTvp9E8SsFpTvd3adFzM0JDx9GSyMKFaEPMCyPuHKo2CmXnt VZp2PzAiFmVOLHwGA4hCvp2QMpJb/M43zff7/b/iettpB930gJSnv0ejz55pXVU9PWYb Kg/ns66fsSy+cWRtc6HT4ekWCJNtLEkkej7QiC5t8Oon4A+2rT8U1TdDjuC9ScJizWLy vls1Nsm0CMOD5jkJW8/XO+SryBJ0liKM4T/tx9O0jDmawF0z/trGb6hbDw3MnbfmLs+w Ibqw9o5M21PVHWHkmApJmlk+7lb4Ekk1N3+3HwvCF6InOzK9/H70G2/C3Iti3EQqTOEi l1Jw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YySZP3Jviaw5Tr3vapMdwv2cTPl/29RSXpm/qN1DikH6POhGwoG Tutsud3aCQ6OO0eGTjyGtAwibpeSp+ngco8tHmY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFaUPTzW+AZNYUCbNAzz4Yh4s2XQ3AtuwCW41UnfrtAgOKAvPJ+/XtCTVFO1ZCTe5HaxkDXVg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:c109:b0:1c3:e4b8:701f with SMTP id 9-20020a170902c10900b001c3e4b8701fmr1445729pli.19.1695091445193; Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dread.disaster.area (pa49-180-20-59.pa.nsw.optusnet.com.au. [49.180.20.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x24-20020a170902b41800b001bbdf32f011sm8879326plr.269.2023.09.18.19.44.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 18 Sep 2023 19:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dave by dread.disaster.area with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qiQiY-002bkQ-0x; Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:44:02 +1000 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 12:44:02 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: James Bottomley Cc: Linus Torvalds , Eric Sandeen , Steven Rostedt , Guenter Roeck , Christoph Hellwig , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS/KERNEL SUMMIT] Trust and maintenance of file systems Message-ID: References: <20230906215327.18a45c89@gandalf.local.home> <20230906225139.6ffe953c@gandalf.local.home> <20230907071801.1d37a3c5@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 05:50:50PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Sat, 2023-09-16 at 08:48 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:03:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > [...] > > >  - "they use the buffer cache". > > > > > > Waah, waah, waah. > > > > .... you dismiss those concerns in the same way a 6 year old school > > yard bully taunts his suffering victims. > > > > Regardless of the merits of the observation you've made, the tone > > and content of this response is *completely unacceptable*.  Please > > keep to technical arguments, Linus, because this sort of response > > has no merit what-so-ever. All it does is shut down the technical > > discussion because no-one wants to be the target of this sort of > > ugly abuse just for participating in a technical discussion. > > > > Given the number of top level maintainers that signed off on the CoC > > that are present in this forum, I had an expectation that this is a > > forum where bad behaviour is not tolerated at all.  So I've waited a > > couple of days to see if anyone in a project leadership position is > > going to say something about this comment..... > > > > > > > > The deafening silence of tacit acceptance is far more damning than > > the high pitched squeal of Linus's childish taunts. > > Well, let's face it: it's a pretty low level taunt and it wasn't aimed > at you (or indeed anyone on the thread that I could find) and it was > backed by technical argument in the next sentence. We all have a > tendency to let off steam about stuff in general not at people in > particular as you did here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/ksummit/ZP+vcgAOyfqWPcXT@dread.disaster.area/ There's a massive difference between someone saying no to a wild proposal with the backing of solid ethical arguments against experimentation on non-consenting human subjects vs someone calling anyone who might disagree with them a bunch of cry-babies. You do yourself a real disservice by claiming these two comments are in any way equivalent. > But I didn't take it as anything more than a rant about AI in general > and syzbot in particular and certainly I didn't assume it was aimed at > me or anyone else. I wasn't ranting about AI at all. If you think that was what I was talking about then you have, once again, completely missed the point. I was talking about the *ethics of our current situation* and how that should dictate the behaviour of community members and bots that they run for the benefit of the community. If a bot is causing harm to the community, then ethics dictates that there is only one reasonable course of action that can be taken... This has *nothing to do with AI* and everything to do with how the community polices hostile actors in the community. If 3rd party run infrastructure is causing direct harm to developers and they aren't allowed to opt out, then what do we do about it? > If everyone reached for the code of conduct when someone had a non- > specific rant using colourful phraseology, we'd be knee deep in > complaints, which is why we tend to be more circumspect when it > happens. I disagree entirely, and I think this a really bad precedent to try to set. Maybe you see it as "Fred has a colourful way with words", but that doesn't change the fact the person receiving that comment might see the same comment very, very differently. I don't think anyone can dispute the fact that top level kernel maintainers are repeat offenders when it comes to being nasty, obnoxious and/or abusive. Just because kernel maintainers have normalised this behaviour between themselves, it does not make it OK to treat anyone else this way. Maintainers need to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the community - the project leaders need to set the example of how everyone else should behave, work and act - and right now I am _very disappointed_ by where this thread has ended up. -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com