Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Multiple vendors seem to prefer taking discussions off list, and > ask contributors to work with them privately rather than just send > patches to the list. I'd imagine this is because it's hard to fit in > time for random developers popping up with features to review into > packed schedule. From what I've seen "work in private" usually means > someone on the company side will be assigned to handle the interaction, > possibly months later. In worst case, the person scheduled to help > the contributor takes over and writes the code themselves. > This is not how the community is supposed to work. > > The discussion on v1 wasn't very conclusive. I am not capable of > distilling many of the suggestions into meaningful changes. > I believe the paragraph works in the context of the document. > > FWIW the paragraph has been consulted with 2 contributors to whom > the described situation has happened. > > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> After pondering on this for a while, I've decided to go ahead and apply this. The intent is good; we can always improve the execution if somebody has a good idea. I do have to say that all of the "must" language in this document is a bit off-putting and may well convince potential maintainers that they don't actually want to play this game. Thanks, jon
