From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C6C8C46475 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:52:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8323320651 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:52:53 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 8323320651 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ZenIV.linux.org.uk Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727465AbeJWNOb (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:14:31 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:35096 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727201AbeJWNOb (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:14:31 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gEogR-0003sw-HR; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 04:52:47 +0000 Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:52:47 +0100 From: Al Viro To: NeilBrown Cc: Josh Triplett , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel , Linus Torvalds , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Mishi Choudhary Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document Message-ID: <20181023045247.GV32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20181020134908.GA32218@kroah.com> <87y3ar80ac.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181021222608.GA24845@localhost> <875zxt919d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20181023033130.GQ32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87r2gh70ij.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 03:25:08PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > >> If Linus is not true to his new-found sensitivity, we might need someone > >> (Greg?) to be a co-maintainer, able to accept patches when Linus has a > >> relapse. It might be good form to create this channel anyway, but I > >> doubt it would be needed in practice. > >> > >> So there you have it. The "Code" is upside down. > >> We need documents which: > >> - curtail the power of the strong, starting with Linus > >> - are adopted willingly by individuals, not imposed on the community. > >> - provide alternate routes for patch-flow, so that no-one has ultimate > >> power. > > > > Really? The ultimate power being to say "No" to a patch, and nobody should > > have such? Are you fucking serious? > > I have noticed of late a tendency in all sorts of different people to > hear/read a statement from someone they know, interpret it a particular > way, be surprised about that interpretation, and persist with believing > that interpretation anyway, rather than realizing that the most likely > explanation is a communication failure, and asking for clarification. > > The "ultimate power" is the ability to say "no" to a patch, *with no > opportunity for review*. Two people together having that ultimate power > is a totally different thing to one person having it alone. If that's a clarification, I'm sorry to say that I understand you even less now. What are you proposing? Duopoly? How do you deal with disagreements? Fork? Revert wars? Frankly, CoC as-is is a bloody awful idea wide-open to abuses, but what you are proposing feels even more incoherent...