On Mon, 19 Jun 2023, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 07:41:57PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: > > @@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ Level 5 > > > > * Upstream kernel development is considered a formal job position, with > > at least a third of the engineer’s time spent doing Upstream Work. > > -* Organizations will actively seek out community member feedback as a > > - factor in official performance reviews. > > Why are you removing this? I write more performance reviews now than I > have have in my life, all for companies that I do NOT work for. That's > a good thing as it shows these orginizations value the feedback of the > community as a reflection on how well those employees are doing at their > assigned job. Why are you removing that very valid thing? > I'm not preventing that. That's covered by level 4 and my patch only alters level 3 and level 5. Bonuses and salaries are tied to performance reviews so the hazard here are clear. Level 5 compels companies to seek feedback and naturally they will seek it from companies who share their goals. You ask too much of employees if you expect them to put aside the corporate agendas and pursue the interests of the wider community. Countless lawsuits over the last few decades made it abundantly clear that the goals of companies often diverge from those of the wider FLOSS community. Consider all of the open source code thrown over the wall, the binary blobs, the binary modules, the built-in obsolescence, the devices shipped with vulnerabilities now reduced to e-waste because they cannot be fixed, the vendor lock-in strategies, the walled gardens, the surveillance etc. To my jaded mind, it is obvious that such reprehensible strategies can be advanced by co-operative employees given inducements from colluding companies. My patch won't prevent this sort of behaviour but it does remove a directive that would help facilitate it. Greg, if you want to see more performance reviews, the maturity model could compel companies to provide unsolicited feedback, instead of seek it from an arbitrary source. Would you be amenable to a revised patch along those lines?
