From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Update MSM maintainers Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:10:46 -0800 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:53988 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755267Ab1BXWLH convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:11:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4D66CDD4.7080103@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Bryan Huntsman Cc: Daniel Walker , David Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Bryan Huntsman = wrote: > > =A0Please let the MSM developers take full > responsibility for the MSM architecture. =A0That 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm= " in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html