On 9/11/19 8:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: > Intel had months of review time for this document before this was > published. Your lawyers had it and never objected to this lack of > inclusion at all, and explictitly said that the document as written was > fine with them. So I'm sorry, but it is much too late to add something > like this to the document at this point in time. Hi Greg, I'll personally take 100% of the blame for this patch. I intended for it to show our commitment to work *with* our colleagues in the community, not to dictate demands. Please consider this as you would any other patch: a humble suggestion to address what I see as a gap. Just to be clear: this addition came from me and only me. It did not come from any Intel lawyers and does not represent any kind of objection to the process. Intel's support for this process is unconditional and not dependent on any of these patches. > Oh, and cute use of the term, "timely manner", as if we are going to > fall for that one again... Oh, I think that was actually a quote from an email from Thomas explaining how he wanted these things dealt with. If you change youer mind and are open to improvements to this process in the future, I'd be happy to change this to some kind of explicit deadline if that's preferred.
