Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:27:09PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 15:38 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Can we please make this into a Kernel Summit discussion. I highly doubt
> > > we would solve anything, but it certainly would be a fun segment to
> > > watch :-)
> > 
> > I think we should, because I think it's the kind of thing we really
> > need at the KS - talking about "process".
> 
> Can you formulate the process issue to discuss?  I've heard "Linus needs
> to yell less at people" and "the mailing lists need to be more
> 'professional'" neither of which seems to identify an actual process.
> Are we perhaps discussing guidelines for giving feedback on patches?
> 
> > At the same time, I really don't know what the format would possibly
> > be like for it to really work as a reasonable discussion. And I think
> > that is important, because this kind of subject is *not* likely
> > possible in the traditional "people sit around tables and maybe
> > somebody has a few slides" format.
> 
> > A small panel discussion with a few people (fiveish?) that have very
> > different viewpoints, along with baskets of rotten fruit set out on
> > the tables? That could be fun. And I'm serious, although we might want
> > to limit the size of the fruit to smaller berries ;)
> 
> How about Lychees?  They're prickly on the outside, very wet on the
> inside and have large stones ...

They taste good, too.

> But what are the viewpoints?  "maintainers need to yell more"?
> "maintainers need to yell less"?  I don't think I agree with either.
> I'm perfectly happy to run linux-scsi along reasonable standards of
> civility and try to keep the debates technical, but that's far easier to
> do on a low traffic list; obviously, I realise that style of argument
> doesn't suit everyone, so it's not a standard of behaviour I'd like to
> see universally imposed.  In fact, I've got to say that I wouldn't like
> to see *any* behaviour standard imposed ... they're all basically cover
> for power plays (or soon get abused as power plays); the only real way
> to display leadership on behaviour standards is by example not by fiat.

OK, I am stupid enough to take a stab at this...

1.	Does the Linux kernel community's health depend on the occasional
	rant?  [My guess is that we simply have no way of knowing.
	That said, I would be interested in hearing specific examples
	of open-source communities that are as doing as well as is the
	Linux community and that live within stricter social mores.
	Cue arguments about exactly what "doing well" means...]

2.	Could the Linux kernel community's health be improved by banning
	the occasional rant?  [Again, I don't believe that we have any
	way of knowing.]

3.	Is there some reasonable way to accommodate a wide range of
	styles of interaction within the Linux community?  [I hope that
	the answer is "yes", but it probably becomes impossible if you
	add the qualifier "that everyone is happy with".]

4.	If there is some reasonable way to accommodate a wide range
	of styles of interaction within the Linux community, can this
	be done globally, or does this require that people who prefer a
	specific style confine themselves to portions of the community
	that practice that specific style?  [As I grow older, I become
	increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of keeping everyone
	happy, but who knows?]

For whatever it is worth...

							Thanx, Paul

> James
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-2013-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-2013-discuss
>