From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A0B6C6D for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 22:15:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outbound1a.ore.mailhop.org (outbound1a.ore.mailhop.org [54.213.22.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3078860 for ; Sat, 10 Nov 2018 22:15:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:59:32 +0000 From: Jason Cooper To: Chris Mason Message-ID: <20181110215932.GD9256@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> Cc: James Bottomley , Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Chris, On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:15:16PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: ... > Ted's earlier reply has a good summary, but the part I want to underline > is that we sought out people who strongly disagreed with us, and we did > our best to understand their concerns. It was important to me that we > give people a private channel to express themselves, especially > considering that the topic at hand was behavior on public lists. > > It was a tradeoff, but I was really happy with the number of people who > participated who might otherwise have stayed out of the discussion > completely. This is the most concise and clear explanation for the path taken. Thanks for sharing it with everyone. thx, Jason. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to: from:date:from; bh=0AREdr+fICMPxfZNz0ODPHNeKSAimOkG8BCJUyFCZkE=; b=NDC//avYlcfh7PKNk1EEGstrkVET/g2YQy60S0A0jRd08gwCt1iRMH42TIoKSsgFTzdb7uV7WfJ4P DM75xZqqc9ncZ+O8Kq7fEp4Yrrg2EAJtPYdRmkSfGocEEOZmOO/SuBF47aJs1wGvPrlPLLU/6U86DU zp0qPFRIsZB06LlZhemcynLmnvo+tRkmtr+HrrNAr5pJ7VlRSI1qm7fKU5cjZFd0X0eR1NgP8EBlVt uN128My2aHEe/L+NlMAXrgH3AxaewAWWkZPQCsToIJfR0Pw5N55/a/IV0a3+xc4bNoTs5ulJosNrPs GzHVNS72ZiJAuDdlRrsr3NM3wsWMtdw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lakedaemon.net; s=mail; t=1541887173; bh=0AREdr+fICMPxfZNz0ODPHNeKSAimOkG8BCJUyFCZkE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=V0tSm0z6NvuVZT3kZT9PsaasneVPmKCbgOK61ApznB+fYu4LUiHxKWxNXBSLxW+QQ /6EwzkkaFelX0DUou1k4CHheis7CPjkOvpDSuofEN6Inx+v2fLiLTjhTHC2jXD3BBl Lgx/JmePH2Nt4+/x6da+2Ctq5qz9Dd00UYQl3TCtI+W++clVH5PBmp/tqyS1KMnV3Y tHsFk6tf9We1NhZiZtmgdg4ZcFM62n+GyludAGWtQPGcp7UVBNhHNhLVPooMha7nbW gxd6v90OLH7/RtSB00dxWWkV1Q6lWZBOovYt83Z6VxHiOTi30cIwzMPPRR/gCsbRDT yJ1Zq92FE2aNA== Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 21:59:32 +0000 From: Jason Cooper Message-ID: <20181110215932.GD9256@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <1541721842.3774.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <35402D8E-0294-4E34-BE8B-22BCBC20BF66@fb.com> <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0F1E6845-9F6D-46E2-BB52-8B0C2D8103C6@fb.com> Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [Ksummit-discuss] TAB non-nomination List-Id: Public TAB discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chris Mason Cc: James Bottomley , Tech Board Discuss , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Hi Chris, On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:15:16PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: ... > Ted's earlier reply has a good summary, but the part I want to underline > is that we sought out people who strongly disagreed with us, and we did > our best to understand their concerns. It was important to me that we > give people a private channel to express themselves, especially > considering that the topic at hand was behavior on public lists. > > It was a tradeoff, but I was really happy with the number of people who > participated who might otherwise have stayed out of the discussion > completely. This is the most concise and clear explanation for the path taken. Thanks for sharing it with everyone. thx, Jason.