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;
Date:   Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:23:14 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-bcachefs@vger.kernel.org,
        dchinner@redhat.com, sandeen@redhat.com, bfoster@redhat.com,
        jack@suse.cz, andreas.gruenbacher@gmail.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] bcachefs
Message-ID: <20230708152314.lcpepguue3imrt3i@moria.home.lan>
References: <20230706155602.mnhsylo3pnief2of@moria.home.lan>
 <20230706164055.GA2306489@perftesting>
 <20230706173819.36c67pf42ba4gmv4@moria.home.lan>
 <20230706211914.GB11476@frogsfrogsfrogs>
 <20230707-badeverbot-gekettet-19ce3c238dac@brauner>
 <20230707091810.bamrvzcif7ncng46@moria.home.lan>
 <30661670c55601ff475f2f0698c2be2958e45c38.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
 <ZKjd7nQxvzRDA2tK@casper.infradead.org>
 <20230708043136.xj4u7mhklpblomqd@moria.home.lan>
 <20230708150249.GO1178919@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230708150249.GO1178919@mit.edu>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 11:02:49AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 12:31:36AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > 
> > I've long thought a more useful CoC would start with "always try to
> > continue the technical conversation in good faith, always try to build
> > off of what other people are saying; don't shut people down".
> 
> Kent, with all due respect, do you not always follow your suggested
> formulation that you've stated above.  That is to say, you do not
> always assume that your conversational partner is trying to raise
> objections in good faith. 

Ted, how do you have a technical conversation with someone who refuses
to say anything concrete, even when you ask them to elaborate on their
objections, and instead just repeats the same vague non-answers?

> You also want to assume that you are the smartest person in the room,
> and if they object, they are Obviously Wrong.

Ok, now you're really reaching.

Anyone who's actually worked with me can tell you I am quick to consider
other people's point of view and quick to admit when I'm wrong.

All I ask is the same courtesy.