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 5FD1313E88B; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:23:58 +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=1720913038; cv=none; b=hctoub7PCP5k/OgBWQ+yEwTHLYfVwSl+roP/FpflEs/3lIwknrom6I7wDhQcsptm8jf6GFufq9MLfHp2+AHGWrHaWbg5YLWQ0AUYeph0aVvYjd+3PGDMqwXIzHf3dCc1jJ0FgZtnI0kzdMuy/+z3Li7jQSV3WdCbP/2HBcF8qa0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1720913038; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ityQgdQqfrknym32A92KO3J7icAtNRHb62wGaHf34iQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=q8eXDIRMcCnRMQVGQUBmjhd9t0dOdMdo638POBfaMqZ2MxfcgTgRxPzfP0TueIaDCQRWGlrI5HWRCs/kr6uy7WV5Wtq6K7OnnW6/db+ZCp2t4EMc+oq9W/PozjoQB8xkh+mIrTk098E8fGkF+LKqGH8VqnwPPh9qNLBxc78JDuI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=J4ubhPpZ; 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="J4ubhPpZ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BA4ADC32781; Sat, 13 Jul 2024 23:23:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1720913037; bh=ityQgdQqfrknym32A92KO3J7icAtNRHb62wGaHf34iQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=J4ubhPpZqFiN7Avr6Ua6pW93vUjUJOYNI1vy2MG3gwyF4VmM226CSpR/svOm3HPMR oZAINz5r56zaONAEzMIphJ7NLk8Td4njYEOHuhUCIMW3WofdE+Yi9sHFVeeqNxJ7/b a6fstWJr4U+OMxcTw7gEdAKkffUkouyxNtTINq2CdwjvMIrT+r6jkrVXARotyulSKS MTzHEKGPX9ve2bWNYH2yyHvFzUNTwdCvx8QcS1S5dVcfkEtKKVfcyzrOcBqJiqIJMH VtD1swqc3T2vwBwC4iy3nA7LqneYIi3WeDmicOWWUjeST1F2GGG7Xk7Cv345//uYf3 YpZ2rzdgwvJgw== Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 16:23:56 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: maintainer: discourage taking conversations off-list Message-ID: <20240713162356.506ad50f@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20240713142651.GI10946@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <20240712144903.392284-1-kuba@kernel.org> <20240713142651.GI10946@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> 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 On Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:26:51 +0300 Laurent Pinchart 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. 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. > > Overall I think this is fine, but I'm a bit concerned it could be > interpreted too broadly. Brainstorming on mailing lists is hard, and > kernel communities often conduct technical discussions face to face, in > conferences or other events. Sometimes those discussions are as private > as they can get, I've found myself cycling multiple times to the office > of a fellow developer who happens to work close to my place in order to > discuss kernel API design in front of a white board. We did our best to > publish brainstorming notes on mailing lists, and patches are then of > course reviewed and further discussed in public. Is this a behaviour you > want to discourage, or is this considered fine ? That's fine. I hope in the context of the rest of the doc the new section makes sense. The doc is aimed at less upstream-savvy driver maintainers. The section before says "you must respond to bug reports" and the section after says "the person selected as maintainer should be a developer not a manager". I hope when reading in that context it is fairly clear that these are not "rules of Linux". More pointing out where folks more familiar with corporate environment get tripped up. I was planning to add this guidance to maintainer-netdev, but folks pushed back saying that the guidance is generally applicable. I semi-quoted some example situation we're aiming at here: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240712164504.76b15e31@kernel.org/