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 234FC1DFD2; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:12:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720807922; cv=none; b=YdaElfX1QO/9alzeAUO5qvzE6yWJU4GPH2y9dPADyt39fWi4t4QKfTYVRHPWM10wYGsQ7XrUn3d9bUF1q7p2TF4fUVgdHhAkmRNu6vz2IMdZe3nvuLx2eYIky6NYyt+tuSLjrIsP8rqEoyW/Fkoqfo4q1m430ImEW3mg8UbICAM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720807922; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lUavLk1QqNbkhDsolfXZxLlW3avOJgYqwuEkxCmZj7c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=DVLm4Xh3iqoSF7s6p60TAr60j7mIRMiTI38ZAMFIsgcSJI9eZeRKvs7nRqMxhZJg6psjILLC8iyuNr8FvF105VDWewX+rM48M7yWSNxjOotaOR9F+RMdUM9HPTZ0amtazdsFvqhYOalqIL1wMVsdBLO+lbRwn99Hg6Vv2VJNNL8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=eRR6MviD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eRR6MviD" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 291C4C4AF07; Fri, 12 Jul 2024 18:11:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1720807921; bh=lUavLk1QqNbkhDsolfXZxLlW3avOJgYqwuEkxCmZj7c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eRR6MviD29mZz/RL8Z3TJcV2Rzi0jqHm62TsZj2fgA8g8tUSA1AG8JqHnk9JRZdCo ld/FOBFZyhxdFyxzB4JG6yDJtNRF8uir+X2OsoZCQ/BlOzvr0t9lxQlI+R3xWfdEmx 3vmHlrXlNcGaY6BYR4gfZpJmF9jiVVe/qIiG4MC5yncN53QdolzsOzY0bKALBOVQ8v 4jeiIOZxC3TE5MzK/EE9O+lMSUtB2pp9WDWAyDKrcvkgXIeKMMhfQS2IfLjm8gEzjr Qbd5uC+M1ou5x7Pgwgl/2OXC4hruS6wvIoeOGxUJqSKADGUlDpcM6OhxKgT247QSC+ R0XaCi5Xe6b2Q== Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:11:56 +0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Shuah Khan Cc: Mark Brown , Jakub Kicinski , corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: maintainer: discourage taking conversations off-list Message-ID: <20240712201156.1413e80e@foz.lan> In-Reply-To: <1a30aea2-e8e4-487d-81e4-dda5c1e8665e@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20240712144903.392284-1-kuba@kernel.org> <7570937c-ead6-40bc-b17f-4ade34a2acf6@sirena.org.uk> <1a30aea2-e8e4-487d-81e4-dda5c1e8665e@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Em Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:42:07 -0600 Shuah Khan escreveu: > On 7/12/24 09:25, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:49:03AM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > >> +Open development > >> +---------------- > >> + > >> +Discussions about user reported issues, and development of new code > >> +should be conducted in a manner typical for the larger subsystem. > >> +It is common for development within a single company to be conducted > >> +behind closed doors. True. So what? > >> However, maintainers must not redirect discussions > >> +and development related to the upstream code from the upstream mailing lists > >> +to closed forums or private conversations. Reasonable exceptions to this > >> +guidance include discussions about security related issues. Not sure what this somewhat obscure message wants to accomplish. It is quite common to have developers and maintainers discussing outside public forums and internally at the companies they're working for. There are lots of reasonable exceptions besides security. On my years of experience, the reasons I've seen more often are: 1. language and/or cultural barriers; 2. teaching and mentoring new developers to start contributing upstream; 3. need to have internal discussions in the light of some IP protected material. (1) and (2) are very common for non-native English speakers and for newbies, and we do want to have more contributions from them. (3) is unavoidable, as discussions related to protected IP can't be disclosed due to legal reasons. Also, if you take it to the letter, have discussions on LPC, summits BoFs, other events handled by the open source community and wall conversations are "closed forums/private conversations". I've seen a lot of good results produced on such private conversations that solved relevant conflicts and got materialized as great contributions. There's nothing wrong with that, provided that the outcoming of such internal discussions are reflected publicly as patches, summit minutes, LWN articles, etc. The only issues I see with such talks is that the work when co-authored should be properly marked as such and that reviewews/acks taken behind doors don't have the same meaning as an upstream review, as they may be due to some internal formalities. IMO, the best would instead to give a positive message. E. g. something like: Maintainers must encourage discussions and reviews to happen at public mailing lists, avoiding whenever possible to have internal discussions. Regards, Mauro