Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756798Ab3GQSFb (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:05:31 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:48596 "EHLO mail-lb0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754211Ab3GQSF3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:05:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20130715204135.GH15531@xanatos> <20130716211235.GG4994@xanatos> <20130716212704.GB9371@thunk.org> <20130716224357.GK4994@xanatos> <1374015299.6458.76.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130716231217.GL4994@xanatos> <51E5D7C8.5000306@gmail.com> <1374018809.2249.29.camel@leira.trondhjem.org> <1000066089.1803398.1374046596236.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <20130717144849.GB16513@xanatos> <1374073771.6458.143.camel@gandalf.local.home> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:05:27 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML From: Felipe Contreras To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Steven Rostedt , Sarah Sharp , CAI Qian , David Lang , ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Darren Hart , Olivier Galibert , stable , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Willy Tarreau , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2233 Lines: 64 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Stefano Stabellini >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >> The last thing I want to do is to lower the quality of the kernel just >> >> to get a wider range of developers. >> > >> > Can we stop bringing the quality of the code into the discussion? >> >> Can you please stop calling open communication abuse? > > Open communication is one thing, abuse is another, so I agree with you > there. You call it abuse, others don't. >> First you have >> to explain *why* it was improper in order to call it abuse, and in the >> few examples that have been shown, it has been explained that the >> behavior was justified (breaking the #1 rule by a lieutenant who >> should know better). > > Abuse is never justified, I hope that's clear for everybody. > Two wrongs don't make a right. > > So we are down to the definition of verbal abuse. > The Oxford dictionary gives me: > > "speak to (someone) in an insulting and offensive way" Here's another definition from Merriam Webster: * language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily That definition fits my idea of abuse. Linus was not unjust, so it's not abuse. > For example I think that calling somebody a moron qualifies. I don't, specially if the person is indeed being a moron. >> > I think it's pretty clear that one doesn't need to be verbally abusive >> > in order to stop bad code from getting into the kernel. >> >> You can think whatever you want, others have already shown that >> changing the tone of the message in the examples would have changed >> the desired effect. > > I disagree and it is certainly not the case in my experience. Suit yourself. If want you wanted was to voice your opinion, I think you have already done that. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/