[Ksummit-2009-discuss] Meeting userspace requirements

James Bottomley James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com
Sun Jul 12 06:41:50 PDT 2009


On Sun, 2009-07-12 at 07:29 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> The reason why I like this taxonomy is I think it helps explain why
> certain ideas/request for implementations/patches get treated the way
> that they do, and if people understand this, then perhaps they'll
> understand that if they get treated a certain way, it's not because
> people are mean-spirited or malicious, but because we get these are
> the natural mechanisms which have evolved over time to filter out bad
> designs, bad code, and crackpots.  

Sure, this taxonomy will do as well.

> I think it might also suggest ways that they might be able to reach
> out to various community members one-on-one, perhaps at a conference,
> or perhaps as a paid consultant (for those who don't already have
> full-time jobs at some Linux company), or perhaps via e-mail asking
> for some help and suggestions about how to push some idea, in a way
> that's productive and less frustrating for all concerned.

But both of our taxonomies miss one of the cultural impediments of LKML:
The desire to demonstrate worth by flaming someone to a crisp.  The
mechanical syntax checkers make it all to easy for someone to feel like
they've just been ripped to shreds in public just because they didn't
know we have style checkers (and the flamer did) --- with no actual
substantive discussion of the patch.  A lot of the time, a maintainer
can see what's going on and does intervene ... but they have to notice
first; this is where the firehose effect of LKML is most detrimental.

James




More information about the Ksummit-2009-discuss mailing list