On Sun, Nov 11 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 07:18:00PM -0800, Frank Rowand wrote: >> OK. So the update was done in an opaque closed fashion, which involved >> soliciting input from some unknown fraction of the community. Do I >> understand that correctly? >> >> And I think it would be fair to say that the people who created the >> update were probably aware of the comments of a much larger group of >> people who had participated in the threads on various email lists, >> and also I suspect the comments threads on the related lwn articles. >> So likely also based on input from a (probably) larger fraction of >> the community who had been willing to publicly comment. >> >> So based on community input, but the document was not reviewed by the >> broader community, or accepted by the broader community. > > "Community" is a very slippery term. I will note that there were > *many* people who were participating on the threads, sometimes in very > non-constructive or in a downright toxic fashion, who had zero commits > in recent years. In some cases, it was zero commits, *ever*. I > recall doing the research on one prolific author and found that while > he did contribute the kernel, it was 3 or 4 commits... ~5 years > ago... to a driver. > > And then there was one person who admitted that while he was just a > user, he insisted he had a right to weigh in the issue. They > certainly have the right to have that belief, of course. Whether or > not maintainers are obliged to cater to people with those beliefs is a > very different question, however. > > There seems to be an assumption that a open, public discussion will > always give you the best review. Maybe not, but it does help create a sense of community. It encourages people to feel valued and included. The new CoC suggests that our standards include * Focusing on what is best for the community Is having a perfect CoC best for the community? Or is having an open process best, even when it produces a suboptimal result? NeilBrown