From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds) Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:10:46 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers In-Reply-To: <4D66CDD4.7080103@codeaurora.org> References: <1298419415-3973-1-git-send-email-davidb@codeaurora.org> <1298420395.17118.6.camel@m0nster> <4D657B69.4000107@codeaurora.org> <1298512932.17118.16.camel@m0nster> <4D66CDD4.7080103@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman wrote: > > ?Please let the MSM developers take full > responsibility for the MSM architecture. ?That is, after all, what the > community typically asks from SOC vendors. Actually, "the community" (not that there really is any such cohesive thing) generally asks that vendors be "involved". Not that vendors be "exclusively in control". There's a big difference. So what I personally find distasteful is how there's apparently some entity that argues that _others_ should be removed from the maintainership. Why would that be the case? This kind of exclusivity argument is bad. Maintainers can step down, but having others remove maintainership seems dubious at best. So get your politics sorted out, guys. Linus