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

[NeilBrown]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 22:27:09 +0400 James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ...
> 
> 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.

I agree that we don't want a formal "standard of behaviour" - it would be just
as bad as the standard for white space.
I also agree that "by example" is the best way to affect behaviour standards.
However this effect can be positive or negative (or both).
And different people have widely varying opportunities to demonstrate
behaviour.

So I don't think this is about saying "maintainer need to do X".
It is about a non-trivial (I believe) section of the community saying "We are
bothered by the current de facto behavioural standard"  i.e. it is feed back
to those in a position to set standards, that their behaviour is having a
negative effect beyond their apparent intention.

Or if you want a sound-bite:

   With great power comes great responsibility.  Are we being responsible?

The particular issue that I see is the venting of negative emotion.  Email is
a particularly bad medium for communicating emotion.  People will *not* hear
what you are trying to say if it is couched in strongly emotional terms.
It isn't the particular word choice or whether the emotion is directed at a
person, or a piece of code, or a cat photo.  The presence of negative emotion
in an email will drown out everything else (for some readers at least, many
I believe, certainly not all).
So my personal perspective on what it means to be responsible is:

   Don't flame:  include the facts, exclude the emotion.

I have no desire to impose this on others, but I'm happy when people impose it
(or something like it) on themselves.

NeilBrown

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature