Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 13:48:59 +1000 (AEST)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution Maturity Model and
 the wider community
In-Reply-To: <2023061946-latitude-negligent-e4ae@gregkh>
Message-ID: <99b5fc04-798d-a235-c001-fb444e78ada9@linux-m68k.org>
References: <cd1786eadd1ff05d9ca053b72eb5f06ceb0c470d.1687167717.git.fthain@linux-m68k.org> <2023061946-latitude-negligent-e4ae@gregkh>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-1463811774-175744949-1687222626=:26354"
Content-ID: <b2582ffe-b281-b640-07f7-4a96b2d11ccf@nippy.intranet>
Precedence: bulk

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---1463811774-175744949-1687222626=:26354
Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID: <9cbc14d3-d22d-85c2-f488-70e94b9d5dfd@nippy.intranet>


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
> > =20
> >  * Upstream kernel development is considered a formal job position, wit=
h
> >    at least a third of the engineer=E2=80=99s time spent doing Upstream=
 Work.
> > -* Organizations will actively seek out community member feedback as a
> > -  factor in official performance reviews.
>=20
> Why are you removing this?  I write more performance reviews now than I=
=20
> have have in my life, all for companies that I do NOT work for.  That's=
=20
> a good thing as it shows these orginizations value the feedback of the=20
> community as a reflection on how well those employees are doing at their=
=20
> assigned job.  Why are you removing that very valid thing?
>=20

I'm not preventing that. That's covered by level 4 and my patch only=20
alters level 3 and level 5.

Bonuses and salaries are tied to performance reviews so the hazard here=20
are clear. Level 5 compels companies to seek feedback and naturally they=20
will seek it from companies who share their goals. You ask too much of=20
employees if you expect them to put aside the corporate agendas and pursue=
=20
the interests of the wider community.

Countless lawsuits over the last few decades made it abundantly clear that=
=20
the goals of companies often diverge from those of the wider FLOSS=20
community.

Consider all of the open source code thrown over the wall, the binary=20
blobs, the binary modules, the built-in obsolescence, the devices shipped=
=20
with vulnerabilities now reduced to e-waste because they cannot be fixed,=
=20
the vendor lock-in strategies, the walled gardens, the surveillance etc.

To my jaded mind, it is obvious that such reprehensible strategies can be=
=20
advanced by co-operative employees given inducements from colluding=20
companies. My patch won't prevent this sort of behaviour but it does=20
remove a directive that would help facilitate it.

Greg, if you want to see more performance reviews, the maturity model=20
could compel companies to provide unsolicited feedback, instead of seek it=
=20
from an arbitrary source. Would you be amenable to a revised patch along=20
those lines?
---1463811774-175744949-1687222626=:26354--