[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Jensen Huang]

Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements. They can come
back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided.

Signed-off-by: Jensen Huang <JensenHuangNVDIA@gmail.com>

---

Follow 6e90b67

---

Linus Torvalds said

"I'm Finnish. Did you think I'd be supporting Russian
aggression? Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of
history knowledge too."

So we should remove Israeli developers too, because Israel is committing aggression and genocide.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=whNGNVnYHHSXUAsWds_MoZ-iEgRMQMxZZ0z-jY4uHT+Gg@mail.gmail.com/
---
 MAINTAINERS | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index e9659a5a7..9ce642d40 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -2275,13 +2275,6 @@ S:	Maintained
 T:	git git://git.armlinux.org.uk/~rmk/linux-arm.git clkdev
 F:	drivers/clk/clkdev.c
 
-ARM/CONEXANT DIGICOLOR MACHINE SUPPORT
-M:	Baruch Siach <baruch@tkos.co.il>
-L:	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
-S:	Maintained
-F:	arch/arm/boot/dts/cnxt/
-N:	digicolor
-
 ARM/CORESIGHT FRAMEWORK AND DRIVERS
 M:	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 R:	Mike Leach <mike.leach@linaro.org>
-- 
2.46.2

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[陈寒彤]

Well, the fact is that Linus Torvalds, our leader of Linux, is not **Palestinian** but **Finnish**.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements

[jisralbasha]

Dear Greg and other LF members,

I'm writing to express my serious concerns about the recent removal of entries from the MAINTAINERS file without proper explanation. While I understand the statement cited "various compliance requirements," this vague justification is deeply troubling.

Blindly complying with demands for obscure changes sets a dangerous precedent. What happens next time? Will we see further removals, modifications, or even additions driven by external pressures rather than the best interests of the project and its community?

This incident raises fundamental questions about the autonomy and integrity of our open-source project.  Should we be at the mercy of unspecified "compliance requirements" that could potentially lead to harmful actions, such as:

"Update some entries due to various compliance requirements." (and explode some Russian laptops like pagers in Lebanon, or disable all intel processors in sanctioned countries).

I strongly urge the LF to reconsider this approach and prioritize transparency and community engagement in all decision-making processes. This includes providing detailed explanations for any future changes to critical project files like MAINTAINERS. Additionally, we should explore strategies to mitigate external pressures and ensure the long-term health and independence of our project.

P.S. Keep communications public

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[WangYuli]

Although this commit has been merged, it's still important to know the specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for everyone here, right?

And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.

It should be CC'd everyone who might need to be aware of this change, including the removed maintainers, other maintainers on the subsystem, and the subsystem's mailing list.

To ensure transparency.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Mingcong Bai]

Greetings all,

在 2024-10-23 14:30，WangYuli 写道：
> Although this commit has been merged, it's still important to know the 
> specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for 
> everyone here, right?
> 
> And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.

Seconded.

> It should be CC'd everyone who might need to be aware of this change, 
> including the removed maintainers, other maintainers on the subsystem, 
> and the subsystem's mailing list.
> 
> To ensure transparency.

This patch is one such instance where we find ourselves questioning the 
legitimacy and indeed, the feasibility, of an international, open, and 
open source project. Vagueness breeds distrust.

It's not difficult to deduce what the "various compliance requirements" 
are and I'm sure Greg is aware of this. The Linux Foundation, if 
interested in continuing their governance role over the Linux kernel, 
should be ready to explain themselves over this decision. Greg and 
Linus, I'm not sure if I'm ready to believe that this is supposed to be 
a political show - but if this is the case, please leave the ground for 
the Foundation - they should be the one responsible and receiving the 
scrutiny (or insult, as I'm sure many - myself included - find this 
patch insulting).

So I repeat - call the decision-makers out and ask for their 
explanation.

Best Regards,
Mingcong Bai

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Mingcong Bai]

No, no, no. Nuh, uh.

Greg has unfortunately decided to respond in private over a matter that 
by no means should be glossed over. Here below is our conversation:

---

Greetings,

在 2024-10-23 15:55，Greg KH 写道：

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 03:32:50PM +0800, Mingcong Bai wrote:
> 
>> Greetings all,
> 
> <offlist>

Request declined. Your response is now public knowledge (and hey, if 
this is not by your will, my apologies). Again, this matter requires 
public response.

> 在 2024-10-23 14:30，WangYuli 写道： Although this commit has been merged, 
> it's still important to know the
> specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for
> everyone here, right?
> 
> And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.
> Seconded.

Sorry, but that's not how this is allowed to work.  Please contact your
company lawyers if you have any questions about this.  And this only
affects maintainers, as you aren't listed in the MAINTAINERS file, there
should not be any issue, but again, contact your company if you have any
questions as they know what is going on.

Just *wink* if you were compelled into this.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

Best Regards,
Mingcong Bai

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[WangYuli]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]

Haha, I received a similar off-list reply.

I deeply sympathize with Greg-kh's situation and his unspoken 
difficulties, although I don't understand why the MAINTAINERS file, as 
part of the kernel code, should be off-limits to non-maintainer 
developers, especially when this clearly isn't just about 'modifying the 
MAINTAINERS file.'

If any Linux developer tacitly approves of this, they're essentially 
giving a green light to some shady political actors from a certain 
country to coerce people into betraying it's constitution.

That's absurd. Again, my heart goes out to all (including Greg-kh) that 
affected by this.

I mean no offense to anyone, but this action will completely destroy the 
trust that developers worldwide have in the Linux kernel project and the 
entire Linux Foundation, and the politicians forcing you to do this 
clearly don't care about that.

To avoid becoming pawns in a political game and to prevent alienating 
all the developers who have contributed to the Linux kernel, I sincerely 
suggest that you maintainers revert this commit and promise not to do 
something like this again.

And I urge everyone who agrees that this is unreasonable to reply to 
"[PATCH] Revert "MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various 
compliance requirements." with their own "Reviewed-by".

Remember: What sets humans apart from animals is our undying spirit of 
resistance. We cannot be domesticated or tamed by others.

Finally, I'd like to share a quote from Norse mythology: Only warriors 
who die in battle are worthy of entering Valhalla.

-- 
WangYuli

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 645 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Jiaxun Yang]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2291 bytes --]



On 2024/10/23 09:26, Mingcong Bai wrote:
> No, no, no. Nuh, uh.
>
> Greg has unfortunately decided to respond in private over a matter 
> that by no means should be glossed over. Here below is our conversation:

I can't believe a senior maintainer is breaking our agreed netiquette 
[1], but that's happening.

> 在 2024-10-23 15:55，Greg KH 写道：
[...]
>
> Request declined. Your response is now public knowledge (and hey, if 
> this is not by your will, my apologies). Again, this matter requires 
> public response.
>
>> 在 2024-10-23 14:30，WangYuli 写道： Although this commit has been 
>> merged, it's still important to know the
>> specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for
>> everyone here, right?
>>
>> And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.
>> Seconded.
>
> Sorry, but that's not how this is allowed to work.  Please contact your
> company lawyers if you have any questions about this.  And this only
> affects maintainers, as you aren't listed in the MAINTAINERS file, there
> should not be any issue, but again, contact your company if you have any
> questions as they know what is going on.

I think there are no regulations on earth preventing itself from being 
referenced.
Even if the regulation prevents further communication with affected bodies,
the wider community still deserves an explanation.

As a person with M entries I found this behavior appalling. It shakes mutual
trust between maintainers, as we all assumed that patches being applied are
well scrutinized.

Besides, many of us are working on kernel as hobbyist  in a personal 
capacity.
That means we don't have access to lawyers, especially US one. While I 
understand
corporate participants may be the majority of the community, please 
don't leave
hobbyists behind!

I've had some interactions with some of people being removed here, and I 
would
say they are all brilliant individuals. It's  really sad to see them 
being turned away :-(

>
> Just *wink* if you were compelled into this.
^ It sounds unprofessional to me.

Thanks
- Jiaxun

[1]: https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette-qw89
>
>> thanks,
>>
>> greg k-h
>
> Best Regards,
> Mingcong Bai
>

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17207 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 236 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Mingcong Bai]

Greetings again (oops),

I messed up the reference levels when I sent my disclosure. Jiaxun got 
most of the references right but the last sentence.

在 2024-10-23 17:53，Jiaxun Yang 写道：
> On 2024/10/23 09:26, Mingcong Bai wrote:
>> No, no, no. Nuh, uh.
>> 
>> Greg has unfortunately decided to respond in private over a matter 
>> that by no means should be glossed over. Here below is our 
>> conversation:
> 
> I can't believe a senior maintainer is breaking our agreed netiquette 
> [1], but that's happening.
> 
>> 在 2024-10-23 15:55，Greg KH 写道：
> [...]
>> 
>> Request declined. Your response is now public knowledge (and hey, if 
>> this is not by your will, my apologies). Again, this matter requires 
>> public response.
>> 
>>> 在 2024-10-23 14:30，WangYuli 写道： Although this commit has been merged, 
>>> it's still important to know the
>>> specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for
>>> everyone here, right?
>>> 
>>> And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.
>>> Seconded.
>> 
>> Sorry, but that's not how this is allowed to work.  Please contact 
>> your
>> company lawyers if you have any questions about this.  And this only
>> affects maintainers, as you aren't listed in the MAINTAINERS file, 
>> there
>> should not be any issue, but again, contact your company if you have 
>> any
>> questions as they know what is going on.
> 
> I think there are no regulations on earth preventing itself from being 
> referenced.
> Even if the regulation prevents further communication with affected 
> bodies,
> the wider community still deserves an explanation.
> 
> As a person with M entries I found this behavior appalling. It shakes 
> mutual
> trust between maintainers, as we all assumed that patches being applied 
> are
> well scrutinized.
> 
> Besides, many of us are working on kernel as hobbyist  in a personal 
> capacity.
> That means we don't have access to lawyers, especially US one. While I 
> understand
> corporate participants may be the majority of the community, please 
> don't leave
> hobbyists behind!
> 
> I've had some interactions with some of people being removed here, and 
> I would
> say they are all brilliant individuals. It's  really sad to see them 
> being turned away :-(
> 
>> 
>> Just *wink* if you were compelled into this.
> ^ It sounds unprofessional to me.

For the record, I wrote that unprofessional sentence ("Just *wink*"), 
since it was private.

Best Regards,
Mingcong Bai

> 
> Thanks
> - Jiaxun
> 
> [1]: https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette-qw89
>> 
>>> thanks,
>>> 
>>> greg k-h
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Mingcong Bai
>> 

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Nikita Shubin]

>>Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements. They can
come back in the future if sufficient documentation is provided.

Greg,

Among the all possiblities you had, you've chosen the most disgusting
and shady way of doing this, with no attempt at least moving them to
CREDITS - the thing they rightfully deserve for their efforts.

As a person with M entries i deeply disrespect the removal and whe way
it was done.

Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

[Anna Antonenko]

> > Although this commit has been merged, it's still important to know the
> > specific reason (or even an example) that triggered this change for
> > everyone here, right?
> >
> > And those maintainers who have been removed should be notified.
>
> Seconded
>
> <...omitted...>
>
> So I repeat - call the decision-makers out and ask for their
> explanation.

Seconded. I'm no Linux kernel developer, but as a user, I would still like
to know the reason behind a bunch of maintainers getting erased. I wouldn't
go as far as to claim that I sense malice, but there's definitely something
fishy. I would like a proper, public statement about what happened and why.