Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Ove Karlsen]

Ok, I just revisited the "Sarah Sharp" "no more abuse" blogpost, where I 
wrote a long comment on the problem she was describing, only to find 
that my comment was not there. I felt a certain degree of provocation, 
since this was a serious and honest post, without any kind of abuse, 
from someone who has researched religion for 10 years.

Later she says she summed up her views, in an LKML post, stating 
"Professional behavior should be the default."

And I am wondering where that comment went. I don´t know if Sarah 
deliberately removed it, or filtered it, however a lot of people are 
like this, "professional behaviour" does not include religious viewpoints.

And what is that other than a facistic abuse.

And do know that religion can be other than christianity, and that even 
believers, can do worldclass code.

I remember the post, and since this has been a topic of discussion, many 
places, I am going to repeat the main parts of it here.

Good conduct historically comes from monotheism, that states "God has no 
partners". That encourages good conduct, in accordance to the nature he 
created you with. As The Quran states "He created you in the best of 
stature". Polytheism is forbidden, and polytheism is about idols, 
phallic objects, overriding nature with pretense behaviour. Which in 
turn is facism.

If one is going to discuss behaviour, I think this is the only basis for 
this, and unbehaved people are online, everywhere. I think the 
difference is really in ones religion.

I did a lot of research on this, which can be read on my blog.

www.ovekarlsen.com

I also do some open-source worldclass DSP plugins, and music production, 
links to this are also on my page.

Theoretically I do believe having a superordinate God of Almightyness, 
(Lord Of The Heavens And The Earth) help defeat many idolaterous and 
obscure theories and beliefs, that makes people behave irrationaliy, and 
provocative.

So for good behaviour, and a beneficient society, one should always work 
for monotheism. And this is not at all unintelligent. This is simply far 
above the level of many, so there I guess it is often missed in a 
discussion, that would lead to any real fix. Without it you are simply 
playing with semantics, and renaming the problem, favouring some group 
of facism.

Peace Be With You.

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
<sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> But, but, the light side has brownies.  Pot brownies that will make
> everyone feel sleepy and peaceful and possibly hungry.  For more pot
> brownies...

Hmm. Maybe we should have a BoF at the KS.

I'll bring the regular cookies.

               Linus

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Sarah Sharp]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > But, but, the light side has brownies.  Pot brownies that will make
> > everyone feel sleepy and peaceful and possibly hungry.  For more pot
> > brownies...
> 
> Hmm. Maybe we should have a BoF at the KS.
> 
> I'll bring the regular cookies.

Well, we're not in the Netherlands, so I don't think pot brownies could
be smuggled into KS. ;)

However, I am serious about this.  Linus, you're one of the worst
offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
their emotions apart.

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135628421403144&w=2
http://marc.info/?l=linux-acpi&m=136157944603147&w=2

I'm not going to put up with that shit any more.

Sarah Sharp

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
<sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> However, I am serious about this.  Linus, you're one of the worst
> offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
> their emotions apart.

Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly
because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice".

The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I
can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I
say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean
it.

And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've
had that happen too - not telling people clearly enough that I don't
like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get
really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.

Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I
simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct. And you
can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures are not
happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about gender too -
I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please bring up
"cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back that same
"cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture too.

Google "management by perkele".

Do you really want to oppress a minority? Because Finns are a minority
compared to almost any other country. If you want to talk cultural
sensitivity, I'll join you. But my culture includes cursing.

And some of the above is written tonge-in-cheek, but all of it is also
serious. I really fundamentally believe that being honest and open
about your emotions about core/process is good. And because it's damn
hard to read people over email, I think you need to be *more* honest
and *more* open over email. I'm generally nicer in person. Not always.

And yes, I'll happily be part of the discussion at the KS. But I think
you also need to be aware that your "high horse" isn't necessarily all
that high.

              Linus

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Sarah Sharp]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:17:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Sarah Sharp
> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > However, I am serious about this.  Linus, you're one of the worst
> > offenders when it comes to verbally abusing people and publicly tearing
> > their emotions apart.
> 
> Yes. And I do it partly (mostly) because it's who I am, and partly
> because I honestly despise being subtle or "nice".
> 
> The fact is, people need to know what my position on things are. And I
> can't just say "please don't do that", because people won't listen. I
> say "On the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle", and I mean
> it.
> 
> And I definitely am not willing to string people along, either. I've
> had that happen too - not telling people clearly enough that I don't
> like their approach, they go on to re-architect something, and get
> really upset when I am then not willing to take their work.

You can tell developers in no uncertain terms that you're not willing to
take their work *without* verbally tearing them apart.  You're Linus
Torvalds, for crying out loud!  I simple, "No, that's a bad idea, stop
working on this RIGHT now," is more than enough from you.  If it's not,
well, those people are just dense and can probably put up with stronger
language.

> Sarah, first off, I don't have that many tools at hand. Secondly, I
> simply don't believe in being polite or politically correct.

Bullshit.  I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
and ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down
emotionally:

http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136130347127908&w=2

You just don't want to take the time to be polite to everyone.  Don't
give me the "I'm not polite" card.  Go write some documentation about
what's acceptable for stable.  While you're at it, write some more
documentation about why it's impossible for you to revert merges, so
maintainers know not to send you crap, or piss away time trying to argue
with you that they don't need to fix regressions.  When maintainers
challenge you, point them to it, and say, "Fix this now."

If they protest, then you can bring out the big threats and say, "If you
don't fix this, I won't pull from you the next merge window.  Go find a
backup maintainer that can handle your tree, and train them for the next
release.  You may need to hand over your maintainership to them."

If the maintainer doesn't have sub-maintainers that could take over,
that's a problem we need to fix *before* things like this happen.  We
should discuss which kernel subsystems don't have backups at KS.

There are other tools at hand.  You just don't use them.

> And you can point at all those cultural factors where some cultures
> are not happy with confrontation (and feel free to make it about
> gender too - I think that's almost entirely cultural too). And please
> bring up "cultural sensitivity" while at it. And I'll give you back
> that same "cultural sensitivity". Please be sensitive to _my_ culture
> too.
> 
> Google "management by perkele".
> 
> Do you really want to oppress a minority? Because Finns are a minority
> compared to almost any other country. If you want to talk cultural
> sensitivity, I'll join you. But my culture includes cursing.

Did I mention minorities here at all?  Nope.  My only comment was that I
wasn't going to be a "nice girl" anymore, which is a comment about my
personality, not about the discussion at hand.

*No one* deserves to be yelled at IN ALL CAPS in email, or publicly
ridiculed.  It doesn't matter if they are a minority or not.

You are in a position of power.  Stop verbally abusing your developers.

> And some of the above is written tonge-in-cheek, but all of it is also
> serious. I really fundamentally believe that being honest and open
> about your emotions about core/process is good. And because it's damn
> hard to read people over email, I think you need to be *more* honest
> and *more* open over email. I'm generally nicer in person. Not always.

*Snort*.  Perhaps we haven't interacted very often, but I have never
seen you be nice in person at KS.  Well, there was that one time you
came to me and very quietly explained you had a problem with your USB
3.0 ports, but you came off as "scared to talk to a girl kernel
developer" more than "I'm trying to be polite".

> And yes, I'll happily be part of the discussion at the KS. But I think
> you also need to be aware that your "high horse" isn't necessarily all
> that high.

Dude, I'm not on a horse here.  I'm not asking you to change your
communication styles in order to help minorities.  I'm not some crazy
feminist ranting about cooties on Google+.

I'm trying to improve the kernel mailing lists for all developers.  We
can give negative technical feedback without verbal abuse.

Sarah Sharp

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
<sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Bullshit.  I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
> why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
> and ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down
> emotionally:

Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for.

But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them.

I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than
random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely
I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think
was not great.

For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers,
and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The
x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most
other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs
etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that
expected level of quality, I go to town.

Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes
excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into
incoherent rages.

The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer
asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending
me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then.

Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my
cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big
difference.

            Linus

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Sarah Sharp]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:07:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Sarah Sharp
> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit.  I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers
> > why there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions,
> > and ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down
> > emotionally:
> 
> Oh, I'll be polite when it's called for.
> 
> But when people who know better send me crap, I'll curse at them.
> 
> I suspect you'll notice me cursing *way* more at top developers than
> random people on the list. I expect more from them, and conversely
> I'll be a lot more upset when they do something that I really think
> was not great.
> 
> For example, my latest cursing explosion was for the x86 maintainers,
> and it comes from the fact that I *know* they know to do better. The
> x86 tip pulls have generally been through way more testing than most
> other pulls I get (not just compiling, but even booting randconfigs
> etc). So when an x86 pull request comes in that clearly missed that
> expected level of quality, I go to town.

Good lord.  So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be
exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known
better"?

You know what the definition of an abuser is?  Someone that seeks out
victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between
the two of them".  They pick victims that won't fight back or report the
abuse.

> Similarly, you will see fireworks if some long-term maintainer makes
> excuses for breaking user space etc. That will make me go into
> incoherent rages.
> 
> The "polite Linus" example that you point to? That was a maintainer
> asking for direction for when things went wrong and *before* sending
> me something dubious. Of course I'm polite then.
> 
> Sarah, I don't have Tourettes syndrome. You seem to think that my
> cursing is uncontrolled and random. I argue that it has causes. Big
> difference.

It does not matter if your cursing fits have causes.  The fact is that
if you misjudge someone's emotional state for the day, you yelling at
them is not productive.

In karate, or any other sport, if your opponent is motionless on the
floor, you stop.  You can't see the person you're emailing.  You can't
see if the first conversation-disabling blow has completely knocked them
out.  You can't see if you've misjudged their mental strength for the
day and completely wiped out their ability to use their brain to correct
the technical mistake you're trying to get them to fix.

Ask them to fix their mistake.  If they protest, then lay into them.  If
you *know* they don't take verbal abuse well, don't.

Let's get this personal baggage out of the way right now, before anyone
else brings it up:

I've been through verbal abuse before.  I won't take that shit from you,
or any of the other Linux kernel developers.  Tell me, politely, what I
have done wrong, and I will fix it.  You don't need to SHOUT, call me
names, or tell me to SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I'm not the only one that won't take verbal abuse.  Stop abusing your
developers.

Sarah Sharp

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Sarah Sharp]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:53:16PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> Good lord.  So anyone that is one of your "top maintainers" could be
> exposed to your verbal abuse just because they "should have known
> better"?
> 
> You know what the definition of an abuser is?  Someone that seeks out
> victims that they know will "just take it" and keep the abuse "between
> the two of them".  They pick victims that won't fight back or report the
> abuse.

Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
Professional behavior should be the default.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/unlikely-feminist-hero-army-chiefs-video-message-draws-plaudits-20130614-2o86b.html

"Those who think that it is ok to behave in a way that demeans or
exploits their colleagues have no place in this army. If that does not
suit you, then get out.

The same goes for those that think that toughness is built on
humiliating others.  Every one of us is responsible for the culture and
reputation of our Army, and the environment in which we work. If you
become aware of any individual degrading another, then show moral
courage and take a stand against it."

> In karate, or any other sport, if your opponent is motionless on the
> floor, you stop.  You can't see the person you're emailing.  You can't
> see if the first conversation-disabling blow has completely knocked them
> out.  You can't see if you've misjudged their mental strength for the
> day and completely wiped out their ability to use their brain to correct
> the technical mistake you're trying to get them to fix.
> 
> Ask them to fix their mistake.  If they protest, then lay into them.  If
> you *know* they don't take verbal abuse well, don't.

Sarah Sharp

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
<sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> Professional behavior should be the default.

Bullshit.

The thing is, the "victim card" is exactly about trying to enforce
your particular expectations on others, and trying to do so in a very
particular way. It's the old "think of the children" argument.  And
it's bogus.  Calling things "professional" is just more of the same -
trying to enforce some kind of convention on others by trying to claim
that it's the only acceptable way.

  [ Since you seem to want to keep this in public, I'll just
cut-and-paste from my reply, so you have already seen this part of my
argument, it's only slightly edited because now I'm no longer typing
on my cellphone ]

The thing is, different people act and react differently. On both
sides. And I think we should recognize that and also *allow* for that.
And sometimes it means, for example, that people interact primarily
with certain people that they like more - because they are a better
"fit".

I think we actually do it very naturally, simply because we are human,
and this is how people interact in real life too. Sometimes we do it
consciously - the way we have people at various companies that act as
go-betweens - but most of the time we do it just because humans are
all about social interactions and we don't even think about what we do
and why.

For example, you work mostly through Greg. I don't think either of you
*planned* it that way, but it's likely because you guys work well
together.

See what I'm saying? People are different. I'm not polite, and I get
upset easily but generally don't hold a grudge - I have these
explosive emails. And that works well for some people. And it probably
doesn't work well with you.

And you know what? That's fine. Not everybody had to get along or work
well with each other. But the fact that it doesn't work with you
doesn't make it "wrong".

This isn't all that different from working around language issues etc
by having certain people work as in-betweens on that front.

And where we differ is in thinking either side has to necessarily
change. You think people need to act "nicer". While I think it's
*natural* that people have different behavior - and different
expectations. We all have issues somewhere and don't all like each
other. There are certain people I refuse to work with, for example.
They may be good engineers, but they just aren't people I can work
with.

And hey, I don't actually think we've personally even had any
problems. And I realize that you may react very strongly and get
nervous about us having problems, but realistically, do you actually
expect to like all the other kernel engineers?

And equally importantly, not everybody has to like you, or necessarily
think they have to be liked by you. OK?

So as far as I'm concerned, the discussion is about "how to work
together DESPITE people being different". Not about trying to make
everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that
I'll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to
work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about
"how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire"

Do you think you might be interested in *that* kind of discussion
instead of the "you are abusing me" kind of discussion?

Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm
not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The
same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to
buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and
backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because
THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all
kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their
normal urges in unnatural ways.

               Linus

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Ingo Molnar]

* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
> <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> > card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> > Professional behavior should be the default.
> 

> [...]
> 
> Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm 
> not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The 
> same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to 
> buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and 
> backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because 
> THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all 
> kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their 
> normal urges in unnatural ways.

Sarah, that's a pretty potent argument by Linus, that "acting 
professionally" risks replacing a raw but honest culture with a
polished but dishonest culture - which is harmful to developing
good technology.

That's a valid concern. What's your reply to that argument?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Sarah Sharp]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
> > <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> > > card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> > > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> > > Professional behavior should be the default.
> > 
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm 
> > not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The 
> > same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to 
> > buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and 
> > backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because 
> > THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all 
> > kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their 
> > normal urges in unnatural ways.
> 
> Sarah, that's a pretty potent argument by Linus, that "acting 
> professionally" risks replacing a raw but honest culture with a
> polished but dishonest culture - which is harmful to developing
> good technology.
> 
> That's a valid concern. What's your reply to that argument?

I don't feel the need to comment, because I feel it's a straw man
argument.  I feel that way because I disagree with the definition of
professionalism that people have been pushing.

To me, being "professional" means treating each other with respect.  I
can show emotion, express displeasure, be direct, and still show respect
for my fellow developers.

For example, I find the following statement to be both direct and
respectful, because it's criticizing code, not the person:

"This code is SHIT!  It adds new warnings and it's marked for stable
when it's clearly *crap code* that's not a bug fix.  I'm going to revert
this merge, and I expect a fix from you IMMEDIATELY."

The following statement is not respectful, because it targets the
person:

"Seriously, Maintainer.  Why are you pushing this kind of *crap* code to
me again?  Why the hell did you mark it for stable when it's clearly
not a bug fix?  Did you even try to f*cking compile this?"

I would appreciate it if people would replace the word "professional"
with "respectful" in this thread.  It means something different to me
than other people, and respect is much closer to what I'm looking for.

I would appreciate it if kernel developers would show respect for each
other, while focusing on criticizing code.  As Rusty said, be gentle
with people.  You've called their baby ugly.

Sarah Sharp

mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
> > > <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> > > > card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> > > > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> > > > Professional behavior should be the default.
> > > 
> > 
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm 
> > > not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The 
> > > same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to 
> > > buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and 
> > > backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because 
> > > THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all 
> > > kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their 
> > > normal urges in unnatural ways.
> > 
> > Sarah, that's a pretty potent argument by Linus, that "acting 
> > professionally" risks replacing a raw but honest culture with a
> > polished but dishonest culture - which is harmful to developing
> > good technology.
> > 
> > That's a valid concern. What's your reply to that argument?
> 
> I don't feel the need to comment, because I feel it's a straw man 
> argument.  I feel that way because I disagree with the definition of 
> professionalism that people have been pushing.

I hope you won't take this as a sign of disrespect, but it's hard to keep 
up with your somewhat fluid opinion about what exactly you find 
objectionable :-/

Early in the thread you claimed it's about politeness:

> Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> [...] I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers why 
> there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions, and 
> ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down emotionally:
>
>   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136130347127908&w=2
>
> You just don't want to take the time to be polite to everyone.  Don't 
> give me the "I'm not polite" card.  Go write some documentation about 
> what's acceptable for stable.

But now you claim something else, it's OK to be impolite, it's just not OK 
to do XYZ ... and it's unclear to me what you mean under XYZ exactly. 
Right now you say XYZ is "disrespect":

> To me, being "professional" means treating each other with respect.  I 
> can show emotion, express displeasure, be direct, and still show respect 
> for my fellow developers.

But what is there to respect about a colossal maintainer f*ck-up, which is 
inextricably tied to the person? Do you really think if Linus replaced 
this:

 "  Ingo, this is just so mind-boggingly STUPID, how did you even f*cking 
    THINK of doing something like that??  "

with a respectful and still truthful statement:

 "
   Ingo, I fully respect you [*] but this is just mind-boggingly
   STUPID, how did you even f*cking THINK of doing something like that??

   [*] Unless you keep doing such sh*t too many times, of course. Then I
       won't respect you anymore and will ignore your patches. You are not 
       my friend, you are a top level maintainer in a meritocracy. There's 
       a way both up and down.
 "

then I would not feel just as bad about it all?

> For example, I find the following statement to be both direct and 
> respectful, because it's criticizing code, not the person:
> 
> "This code is SHIT!  It adds new warnings and it's marked for stable 
> when it's clearly *crap code* that's not a bug fix.  I'm going to revert 
> this merge, and I expect a fix from you IMMEDIATELY."
> 
> The following statement is not respectful, because it targets the 
> person:
> 
> "Seriously, Maintainer.  Why are you pushing this kind of *crap* code to 
> me again?  Why the hell did you mark it for stable when it's clearly not 
> a bug fix?  Did you even try to f*cking compile this?"

Well, but often it's the action of the maintainer that what was wrong, not 
the patch primarily.

Mistakes in patches and code happen all the time. Linus rarely if ever 
flamed me for _that_ - sh*t happens.

What he flames me for, and what you (with all due respect) still don't 
seem to understand, are _META_ mistakes. Top level maintainer level 
mistakes. Bad patterns of maintainer behavior that really should not occur 
because they could affect many patches in the future, such as:

 - trying to argue regressions away - i.e. not 'shutting up' in time, 
   being a meta hindrance to problem resolution

 - doing a sloppy Git flow, repeatedly

 - not testing adequately, especially when the pull request occurs at a 
   critical time (such as a couple of hours before -rc1)

 - [ and many other meta mistakes ]

None of those arguments are about code and still I fully expect Linus to 
pin those on me if he notices a meta bug in my behavior and finds it 
dangerous.

> I would appreciate it if people would replace the word "professional" 
> with "respectful" in this thread.  It means something different to me 
> than other people, and respect is much closer to what I'm looking for.
> 
> I would appreciate it if kernel developers would show respect for each 
> other, while focusing on criticizing code.  As Rusty said, be gentle 
> with people.  You've called their baby ugly.

But Linus doesn't really criticise mistakes in code primarily when he 
flames top level maintainers!

Read the very examples you dug out of the lkml archives, the Linus "worst 
of" list. Sure, some bad code is almost always part of a specific 
incident, but primarily he criticises the maintainer flow, and that is 
fundamentally tied to the _person_.

_That_ is why it might look to you as if the person was attacked, because 
indeed the actions of the top level maintainer were wrong and are 
criticised.

... and now you want to 'shut down' the discussion. With all due respect, 
you started it, you have put out various heavy accusations here and 
elsewhere, so you might as well take responsibility for it and let the 
discussion be brought to a conclusion, wherever that may take us, compared 
to your initial view?

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> Mistakes in patches and code happen all the time. Linus rarely if ever 
> flamed me for _that_ - sh*t happens.
> 
> What he flames me for, and what you (with all due respect) still don't 
> seem to understand, are _META_ mistakes. Top level maintainer level 
> mistakes. Bad patterns of maintainer behavior that really should not 
> occur because they could affect many patches in the future, such as:
> 
>  - trying to argue regressions away - i.e. not 'shutting up' in time, 
>    being a meta hindrance to problem resolution
> 
>  - doing a sloppy Git flow, repeatedly
> 
>  - not testing adequately, especially when the pull request occurs at a 
>    critical time (such as a couple of hours before -rc1)
> 
>  - [ and many other meta mistakes ]
> 
> None of those arguments are about code and still I fully expect Linus to 
> pin those on me if he notices a meta bug in my behavior and finds it 
> dangerous.

And note that whenever I or a fellow -tip maintainer got such an unhappy 
complaint from Linus in the past couple of years our response wasn't just 
to fix some broken code.

Our response was to fix broken top level maintainer behavior, by applying 
'meta fixes':

  - changing our Git workflow

  - adding more scripting to catch bad commits

  - changing our flow of sending pull requests, adding fail-safes

  - trying to think more neutrally about bug reports to avoid punishing 
    the messenger and to avoid arguing regressions away

  - hardening our review process

  - making sure at least one -tip maintainer watches lkml for bugreports

  - tightening our controls to avoid missed patches

  - thinking about the timing of pull requests

  - etc., etc.

(And there's an even larger body of 'meta fixes' we applied without being 
prodded by Linus.)

On the outside such incidents look like as if Linus flamed 'the person' in 
a disrespectful way.

What Linus _really_ flamed us for in 95% of the cases was the meta 
process, the 'meta code' of Linux, which is not actual source code but 
mostly a social construct, informal patterns of human behavior - and those 
are inextricably embedded in the person.

And because the 'meta fixes' too are often of social nature, what you see 
when reading lkml is just a unidirectional stream of complaints from 
Linus. You typically don't see patch notifications of changed behavior. 
Nor do you see top level maintainers 'speaking up against Linus' very 
often: these are bugreports from Linus and we simply fix them, there's not 
much to speak up against.

Linus is very laissez-faire about maintainence, so whenever he _does_ 
erupt at us (at a clip of ~10,000 commits per cycle that do go in without 
any complaint from Linus) it's justified in a large percentage of cases.

So despite the outside appearance this is not top level Linux maintainers 
being oppressed by Linus or suffering from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome
:-)

We are just as stubborn as Linus and do speak up against Linus when needed 
- it just rarely is necessary - in great part because Linus flames in 
public and takes care he is upset for a good reason so he does not have to 
walk back on his flame. Public embarrassment cuts both ways.

When Linus's complaint is unjustified top level maintainers _do_ speak up 
- see Thomas Gleixner's recent example, which resulted in Linus 
apologizing. (It's a rare occurance and we've archived all the emails for 
the history books.)

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Kurt H Maier]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> ... and now you want to 'shut down' the discussion. With all due respect, 
> you started it, you have put out various heavy accusations here and 
> elsewhere, so you might as well take responsibility for it and let the 
> discussion be brought to a conclusion, wherever that may take us, compared 
> to your initial view?
> 

This wasn't about having a discussion, it was about "taking a stand,"
and since the reaction to the stand wasn't unanimously supportive, it's
easier to take it inside the wire, out of public view, before backing
down.

khm

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Sarah Sharp]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
> > > > <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> > > > > card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> > > > > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> > > > > Professional behavior should be the default.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm 
> > > > not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The 
> > > > same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to 
> > > > buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and 
> > > > backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because 
> > > > THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all 
> > > > kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their 
> > > > normal urges in unnatural ways.
> > > 
> > > Sarah, that's a pretty potent argument by Linus, that "acting 
> > > professionally" risks replacing a raw but honest culture with a
> > > polished but dishonest culture - which is harmful to developing
> > > good technology.
> > > 
> > > That's a valid concern. What's your reply to that argument?
> > 
> > I don't feel the need to comment, because I feel it's a straw man 
> > argument.  I feel that way because I disagree with the definition of 
> > professionalism that people have been pushing.
> 
> I hope you won't take this as a sign of disrespect, but it's hard to keep 
> up with your somewhat fluid opinion about what exactly you find 
> objectionable :-/

The good news is you're confused because I've been influenced by some of
the arguments people have made on this thread.  As a result, my
viewpoints may have changed subtly, and I've given up arguing other
points because it's clear people are clinging to certain behaviors, and
I'm not going to change their mind about them.

I apologize for causing confusion, and I will attempt to restate my
current opinion.

There are essential three types of "attacks" that are being discussed on
this thread:

1. Personal attacks
2. Attacks against people's behaviors
3. Attacks against code

People, in general, agree that #3 (attacks on code) is fine.  Most kernel
developers will attempt to be civil when giving code review, and I don't
see an issue with telling someone politely that their code needs to be
fixed.

Many developers have stated they feel it's OK to flame someone that
continues to push bad code over and over without taking the maintainer's
feedback into account.  My issue is that maintainers should try simply
saying, "No, this is bad code, and I WILL NOT take it" before flaming the
individual.  Anything else is simply the maintainer venting their
frustration at the submitter in a public forum.  This could be constituted
as a personal attack, depending on what language is used in the flame
email.

So, #3 (attacks against code) may be appropriate community behavior, but
it's up to the maintainer to decide what language is appropriate, and how
many times they want to be nice before they start to flame someone.

I believe that most kernel developers agree that #1 (personal attacks)
aren't appropriate, but they disagree about what constitutes a personal
attack.  Several kernel developers have expressed that they think #2
(attacks against people's behavior) is socially acceptable, when it comes
infrequently from Linus.

I think the key here is "from Linus".  Research has shown that verbal
abuse and bullying rarely comes from subordinates criticizing people in
power.  The book "No Assholes Rule" cites research that shows only 1% of
subordinates bully their superiors.  That's because people (like me) who
are not in a position of power face intense push back from the community
and personal harassment from jerks on the internet when they question or
cuss at someone in a position of power.  But, it's perfectly socially
acceptable for Linus to cuss out a person below him in the kernel tree
hierarchy.

Do you see the power dynamics issue here?  No one in the community is
willing to call out Linus when he tells Mauro to SHUT THE FUCK UP, which
is a personal attack.  Several people in the community have jumped at
criticizing my use of the word fuck in sentences that are not personal
attacks.  I.e. "If you give a flying fuck about diversity, the kernel
community members should avoid verbal abuse."

There's a severe double standard here.  Let's talk about this elephant in
the room, rather than sweeping it under the rug.


There's a very very fine line between personal attacks and attacks
pointing out people's bad behavior.  In my opinion, developers need to
be very respectful when giving negative feedback on a person's behavior,
in order to make sure the attack isn't perceived as a personal attack.

"Respect" means different things to different people.  Here's a list of
potentially disrespectful behaviors:

 * cussing
 * belittling statements
 * demeaning sarcasm
 * telling someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP
 * overuse of ALL CAPS to prove a point
 * encouraging suicide (telling someone to go kill themselves)
 * hysteria (inappropriate over-reaction to a bad situation)
 * name calling (calling someone stupid, a moron, etc)
 * insulting someone's technical skills
 * making people feel inferior
 * rewriting someone's code and submitting it without credit to them
 * ...and not apologizing for these behaviors when someone proves you
   are wrong about the situation, or over-reacting.

When these behaviors are combined with giving negative feedback on
someone's behavior, some developers may perceive the email as a personal
attack.  That's why I advocate minimizing these behaviors in
communications between Linus and his lieutenants about their bad
behavior as maintainers.


> Early in the thread you claimed it's about politeness:
> 
> > Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...] I've seen you be polite, and explain to clueless maintainers why 
> > there's no way you can revert their merge that caused regressions, and 
> > ask them to fit it without resorting to tearing them down emotionally:
> >
> >   http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136130347127908&w=2
> >
> > You just don't want to take the time to be polite to everyone.  Don't 
> > give me the "I'm not polite" card.  Go write some documentation about 
> > what's acceptable for stable.
> 
> But now you claim something else, it's OK to be impolite, it's just not OK 
> to do XYZ ... and it's unclear to me what you mean under XYZ exactly. 

I changed my stated viewpoint, because I'm clearly not going to get
anyone to change their mind about cussing on the mailing list, or
attempting to be civil to people who send crap code.  I can't change any
hearts or minds there, so my focus in the most recent threads has been
on whether we can agree that personal attacks and attacking a person's
behavior is not acceptable.

> Right now you say XYZ is "disrespect":
> 
> > To me, being "professional" means treating each other with respect.  I 
> > can show emotion, express displeasure, be direct, and still show respect 
> > for my fellow developers.
> 
> But what is there to respect about a colossal maintainer f*ck-up, which is 
> inextricably tied to the person? Do you really think if Linus replaced 
> this:
> 
>  "  Ingo, this is just so mind-boggingly STUPID, how did you even f*cking 
>     THINK of doing something like that??  "

Let's see, this includes:
 * name calling
 * insults about your intelligence
 * ALL CAPS

> 
> with a respectful and still truthful statement:
> 
>  "
>    Ingo, I fully respect you [*] but this is just mind-boggingly
>    STUPID, how did you even f*cking THINK of doing something like that??
> 
>    [*] Unless you keep doing such sh*t too many times, of course. Then I
>        won't respect you anymore and will ignore your patches. You are not 
>        my friend, you are a top level maintainer in a meritocracy. There's 
>        a way both up and down.
>  "
> 
> then I would not feel just as bad about it all?

If Linus feels that he needs to use name calling and insults in order to
get his point heard, I would appreciate if he prefaced his statements
with "I respect you, but seriously..."

I think the issue here is that Linus' lieutenants *know* Linus trusts
and respects him, and most of them don't need that prefix to his
emails.  That leads people to look at Linus' email to Mauro, and say
things like, "Linus is just expressing his disappointment that his
maintainer violated his trust by refusing to fix a regression."

https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

The problem is, without the prefix of "I respect you" or "Your pull
requests are normally flawless", outsiders to our community don't
understand the context.  They don't see this as an "I trust you, but you
fucked up" email.  They see this as a verbally abusive message from
Linus.

Perhaps what might help here is a kernel organizational chart.  A graph
of who sends pull requests to Linus, and their subsystem maintainers.
For example, in the USB "branch" there would be:

				Linus Torvalds
			(Linux kernel release engineer)
					|
					|
				Greg Kroah-Hartman
				      (USB)
					|
					|
			-------------------------------------------------
			|		|		|		|
			|		|		|		|
		Sarah Sharp		|		|	   Oliver Neukum
	(USB3 and USB core)		|		|	(USB NCM and auto-suspend)
					|		|
				Alan Stern		|
			(EHCI/UHCI/OHCI and USB core)	|
							|
							|
						Felipe Balbi
					(USB3 plat and USB gadget)

The org chart would help outsiders understand that "this random flame
email" is between two people with a trust link.  If an outsider sees an
email blast from Linus to Greg, they will understand this is a "I trust
you as one of my top lieutenants, and as a maintainer, you fucked up."

There's a couple more benefits from an org chart that would be worth
discussing.

An org chart would be helpful for people submitting patches for the first
time.  If someone submits a patch to a USB driver, they'll know they
really should be listening to feedback from Greg, Alan, Felipe, Oliver,
and me.  If J. Random developer is whinging about coding style issues that
checkpatch didn't catch, the submitter will know that they should take
their feedback with a grain of salt.

(This brings up the issue that there should be a place in the org chart
for trusted reviewers, in the case where they aren't a maintainer of code,
but they do have pull in that corner of the kernel community.)

The org chart is also helpful for showing the "bus factor" of different
parts of the kernel.  If Greg gets hit by a bus, he has four sub-sub
maintainers who could possibly take over maintainership of USB.  Other
kernel subsystems don't have sub-sub maintainers, or even backup
maintainers that could take over if the subsystem maintainer had a family
emergency during the merge window.  An org chart would make those
subsystems that aren't deep enough pretty obvious.

Perhaps which maintainer is next in line should be made explicit.  We have
had people die in the kernel community (like David Brownell), and we
should have a plan for who is the backup maintainer, should the worst
happen.  Greg worked with Alan to ensure that the EHCI driver would
continue to be maintained, and I suspect Alan would be Greg's choice for
USB subsystem maintainership if Greg should kick the bucket.  However, if
Greg wasn't there to ask Alan to be a maintainer for all of USB, or the
four sub-sub maintainers fought amongst themselves for control of the USB
maintainership, then that would cause a lot of unnecessary community
strife.

We could have people's photos attached to their names, so that it's easier
for people who are new the community to find people at conferences, and
know who they're talking to.

Basically, there are a lot of potential positive outcomes of making an org
chart.  Does anyone have any objections to someone making one?

> ... and now you want to 'shut down' the discussion. With all due respect, 
> you started it, you have put out various heavy accusations here and 
> elsewhere, so you might as well take responsibility for it and let the 
> discussion be brought to a conclusion, wherever that may take us, compared 
> to your initial view?

Linus expressed that we should be doing our jobs as kernel maintainers,
rather than "talking around the water cooler" about this issue:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/18/426

I'm not trying to shut down this discussion.  But please, let's continue
this discussion at KS, away from the court of public opinion.  I would
love for this email to serve as a final summary of my opinion.  We can
use this email to start a conversation at KS, and we can argue our
hearts out there about the various points.

Just please, let me do my job as a kernel maintainer, and please stop
replying to this conversation.  I can only write so many long emails a
day without it cutting into my time for writing code and debugging USB
issues.

Move on, agree to disagree, and let's discuss this at KS.

Sarah Sharp

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Freitag, 19. Juli 2013, 12:01:27 schrieb Sarah Sharp:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
[…]
> "Respect" means different things to different people.  Here's a list of
> potentially disrespectful behaviors:
> 
>  * cussing
>  * belittling statements
>  * demeaning sarcasm
>  * telling someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP
>  * overuse of ALL CAPS to prove a point
>  * encouraging suicide (telling someone to go kill themselves)
>  * hysteria (inappropriate over-reaction to a bad situation)
>  * name calling (calling someone stupid, a moron, etc)
>  * insulting someone's technical skills
>  * making people feel inferior
>  * rewriting someone's code and submitting it without credit to them
>  * ...and not apologizing for these behaviors when someone proves you
>    are wrong about the situation, or over-reacting.
> 
> When these behaviors are combined with giving negative feedback on
> someone's behavior, some developers may perceive the email as a personal
> attack.  That's why I advocate minimizing these behaviors in
> communications between Linus and his lieutenants about their bad
> behavior as maintainers.

I have one note about what you wrote and I see similar wording in other mails 
as I read the thread with interest (but without having much to add to what I 
wrote in my one mail before):

Linus and his lieutenants?

I heard the word "benevolent dictator" in conjunction with Linus, dunno, 
whether he said it or someone else said it or whatnot, but still:

Is the kernel developer community a *military* organisation?

Just wanted to raise awareness to this wording.

As you pointed out repeatedly: Words make a difference.

A huge one, I think.

> Just please, let me do my job as a kernel maintainer, and please stop
> replying to this conversation.  I can only write so many long emails a
> day without it cutting into my time for writing code and debugging USB
> issues.
> 
> Move on, agree to disagree, and let's discuss this at KS.

This however is clearly *your* decision. Its is absolutely and completely your 
decision whether you reply to a mail or not. So I won´t accept any 
responsibility for that and I am fully aware that I have no power to not let 
you do your job as a kernel maintainer. :)

Thanks,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 12:01 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> Move on, agree to disagree, and let's discuss this at KS.

+1

(Sorry for the reply ;-)

-- Steve

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Kurt H Maier]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:01:27PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> 
> I'm not trying to shut down this discussion.  But please, let's continue
> this discussion at KS, away from the court of public opinion.  I would
> love for this email to serve as a final summary of my opinion.  We can
> use this email to start a conversation at KS, and we can argue our
> hearts out there about the various points.

Well more than half your argument is about how "the court of public
opinion" regards interactions on the mailing list.  Why is this
discussion exempt?

> 
> Just please, let me do my job as a kernel maintainer, and please stop
> replying to this conversation.  I can only write so many long emails a
> day without it cutting into my time for writing code and debugging USB
> issues.
> 

You should have thought about that before you posted your assault on
free expression to every single social media outlet you have access to,
With any luck, next time, you will.

khm

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:22:56AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:39:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Sarah Sharp
> > > > > <sarah.a.sharp@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for "playing the victim
> > > > > > card".  I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
> > > > > > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
> > > > > > Professional behavior should be the default.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because if you want me to "act professional", I can tell you that I'm 
> > > > > not interested. I'm sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The 
> > > > > same way I'm not going to start wearing ties, I'm *also* not going to 
> > > > > buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and 
> > > > > backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because 
> > > > > THAT is what "acting professionally" results in: people resort to all 
> > > > > kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their 
> > > > > normal urges in unnatural ways.
> > > > 
> > > > Sarah, that's a pretty potent argument by Linus, that "acting 
> > > > professionally" risks replacing a raw but honest culture with a
> > > > polished but dishonest culture - which is harmful to developing
> > > > good technology.
> > > > 
> > > > That's a valid concern. What's your reply to that argument?
> > > 
> > > I don't feel the need to comment, because I feel it's a straw man 
> > > argument.  I feel that way because I disagree with the definition of 
> > > professionalism that people have been pushing.
> > 
> > I hope you won't take this as a sign of disrespect, but it's hard to keep 
> > up with your somewhat fluid opinion about what exactly you find 
> > objectionable :-/
> 
> The good news is you're confused because I've been influenced by some of 
> the arguments people have made on this thread.  As a result, my 
> viewpoints may have changed subtly, [...]

It's nice to see such flexiblity!

Thanks for the very detailed description of your opinion, it's a very 
constructive approach.

My opinion is flexible and subject to change as well - and I agree that 
this is better discussed at the KS.

Thanks,

	Ingo

Re: mistakes in code vs. maintainer flow mistakes (was: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review)

[Ingo Molnar]

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:

> [...]
> 
> ... and now you want to 'shut down' the discussion. With all due 
> respect, you started it, you have put out various heavy accusations here 
> and elsewhere, so you might as well take responsibility for it and let 
> the discussion be brought to a conclusion, wherever that may take us, 
> compared to your initial view?

I'd like to retract this portion of my mail because in hindsight it's 
overly (and undeservedly) harsh and confrontative.

I found your followup description entirely satisfactory, thanks for taking 
the time to write it up and I think it's a good starting point for the 
Kernel Summit discussion.

Thanks,

	Ingo