[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:27:09PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we please make this into a Kernel Summit discussion. I highly doubt
> > > we would solve anything, but it certainly would be a fun segment to
> > > watch :-)
> >
> > I think we should, because I think it's the kind of thing we really
> > need at the KS - talking about "process".
> Can you formulate the process issue to discuss? I've heard "Linus needs
> to yell less at people" and "the mailing lists need to be more
> 'professional'" neither of which seems to identify an actual process.
> Are we perhaps discussing guidelines for giving feedback on patches?
> > At the same time, I really don't know what the format would possibly
> > be like for it to really work as a reasonable discussion. And I think
> > that is important, because this kind of subject is *not* likely
> > possible in the traditional "people sit around tables and maybe
> > somebody has a few slides" format.
> > A small panel discussion with a few people (fiveish?) that have very
> > different viewpoints, along with baskets of rotten fruit set out on
> > the tables? That could be fun. And I'm serious, although we might want
> > to limit the size of the fruit to smaller berries ;)
> How about Lychees? They're prickly on the outside, very wet on the
> inside and have large stones ...

They taste good, too.

> But what are the viewpoints? "maintainers need to yell more"?
> "maintainers need to yell less"? I don't think I agree with either.
> I'm perfectly happy to run linux-scsi along reasonable standards of
> civility and try to keep the debates technical, but that's far easier to
> do on a low traffic list; obviously, I realise that style of argument
> doesn't suit everyone, so it's not a standard of behaviour I'd like to
> see universally imposed. In fact, I've got to say that I wouldn't like
> to see *any* behaviour standard imposed ... they're all basically cover
> for power plays (or soon get abused as power plays); the only real way
> to display leadership on behaviour standards is by example not by fiat.

OK, I am stupid enough to take a stab at this...

1. Does the Linux kernel community's health depend on the occasional
rant? [My guess is that we simply have no way of knowing.
That said, I would be interested in hearing specific examples
of open-source communities that are as doing as well as is the
Linux community and that live within stricter social mores.
Cue arguments about exactly what "doing well" means...]

2. Could the Linux kernel community's health be improved by banning
the occasional rant? [Again, I don't believe that we have any
way of knowing.]

3. Is there some reasonable way to accommodate a wide range of
styles of interaction within the Linux community? [I hope that
the answer is "yes", but it probably becomes impossible if you
add the qualifier "that everyone is happy with".]

4. If there is some reasonable way to accommodate a wide range
of styles of interaction within the Linux community, can this
be done globally, or does this require that people who prefer a
specific style confine themselves to portions of the community
that practice that specific style? [As I grow older, I become
increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of keeping everyone
happy, but who knows?]

For whatever it is worth...

Thanx, Paul

> James
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-2013-discuss mailing list

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-17 00:01    [W:0.371 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site