Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Oct 2018 05:52:47 +0100 | From | Al Viro <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Call to Action Re: [PATCH 0/7] Code of Conduct: Fix some wording, and add an interpretation document |
| |
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...
| |