From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757403Ab3GQVv2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:51:28 -0400 Received: from e9.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.139]:41167 "EHLO e9.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752542Ab3GQVv0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 17:51:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:51:19 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: James Bottomley Cc: ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Darren Hart , Linux Kernel Mailing List , stable , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review) Message-ID: <20130717215119.GF4161@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20130715184642.GE15531@xanatos> <20130715195316.GF15531@xanatos> <20130715204135.GH15531@xanatos> <1373926109.17876.221.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1373999229.2148.87.camel@dabdike> <20130716211830.GX16780@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1374041689.2036.14.camel@dabdike.svoaero.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1374041689.2036.14.camel@dabdike.svoaero.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13071721-7182-0000-0000-000007C20C5B Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:14:49AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 14:18 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > 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 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... > > Well, you have friends in acadaemia, perhaps there might be an > interesting study here. If you consider the management style of the > kernel, does it enable contributions from a broader range of people than > would be tolerated in industry? Industry has a problem with what > managers like to call "brilliant jerks" people who have a well > recognised talent but who cannot be controlled (at least by the > aforementioned managers) and become corrosive to the team (do we > actually manage to make use of these people in the kernel?). They also > tend to have a problem at the bottom end: those who are just about OK at > their jobs; certainly not bad enough to be fired but whom they'd dearly > love to replace with better workers (does the attitude in the kernel > tend to discourage these types?) > > It's probably less relevant to the discussion at hand, but I'd be > curious to see the results. Assuming they say that we do have a higher > output per developer, the next study could investigate why this is ... I do like your problem statement better than mine, but I must add that I have come across people who are much more "outspoken" in proprietary projects than I have seen on LKML. Sorry, no quotes via email, even private email. Face-to-face verbal only for that level of nastiness. Most of my friends in academia are in computer science, but I have come across a few business-school types. Is this something that LF would be interested in allowing me to place its name behind? Also, such a study would require some interaction with the researchers, should any be interested. Would people be willing to be interviewed, either by phone or email? Or would such a study need to content itself with analysis of email archives and online news sites? Thanx, Paul