Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Adding more formality around feature inclusion and ejection

[<dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

James Bottomley wrote:
> I think the only point of agreement on this topic will be that how
> bcachefs was handled wasn't correct at many levels.  I think this shows
> we need more formality around feature inclusion, including a possible
> probationary period and even things like mentorship and we definitely
> need a formal process that extends beyond Linus for deciding we can no
> longer work with someone any more.

A different perspective, the informal, albeit messy, process eventually
arrived at an outcome that does put project health first. There is a
risk here of over-indexing on a proactive formal process for what is an
infrequent, latent, and emergent problem. Look, sometimes it is not
clear that an individual will continually fail to respect personal and
community boundaries until they repeatedly fail to respect personal and
community boundaries.

The change I hope that comes from this is indeed more maturity and
courage around boundary setting. It reinforces a lesson it took me a
while to learn in my career: technical correctness and brilliant ideas
are necessary but insufficient for moving Linux forward. This community
does not lack for talent and ideas. Maintaining trust and collaboration,
that is the hard work of Linux.

This anecdote from Pat rang in my ears this past week:

"You need to be right less and effective more!" [1]

[1]: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/patgelsinger_sometimes-its-not-about-being-right-its-activity-7361475388390191104-rFVb