3 ms·

No, but that's not the relationship between Google employees and the kernel either. Google is functionally a third party vendor submitting their own solution f

No, but that's not the relationship between Google employees and the kernel either. Google is functionally a third party vendor submitting their own solution for a technical problem the Chromium team wants fixed by changes to the kernel. That's the lens through which the response should be seen imo. Google isn't a coworker, a teammate or a friend in this situation. They're a third party entirely.

endisneigh 3y ago
So what? Third parties should be treated respectfully, or do you disagree?
- noirscape 3y ago
  Certainly. That said, I do think that Linus Torvalds is treating the Google employee respectfully here, given the dynamics and context at play. Firstly: Torvalds does not owe Google anything beyond basic respect for sending him a patch; they don't pay his wages, nor does the LKML have Google as a business customer (Google does donate to the LF but only 3% of the LFs actual funding goes to kernel development and therefore Torvalds' wages). That basic respect is given - Torvalds does not insult or demean the submitters technical skills, merely the implementation they ended up going with. Secondly: As far as I can tell, this proposal was brought forward straight up with an implementation, rather than consulting beforehand with the Mailing List on if this is a good idea and what such a contribution would look like in the context of the kernel (given that the implementation isn't a bugfix). Especially for more "mature"/"large" projects, dumping patch proposals that add maintenance overhead as a form of "discussion" as a submission tends to be seen as a hostile move. This is just general FOSS good behavior and from what I can tell this patch went through Googles internal discussion lists rather than the LKML. Google, perhaps to some suprise, does not own the LKML. The rudeness in that regard is mutual and was arguably started by the patch being submitted in that manner to begin with. (Something which is indicated further in the thread by the fact that the author attempted to start a new patch series for their proposal rather than discuss the feedback they got, showcasing they have little care for actually working with the LKML to get the patch merged). Thirdly: I frankly... just don't think this feedback is that harsh in the light of that dynamic? Sure, some of it uses strong language but I've been on the receiving end of way worse from university teachers and the like. "This is a fundamentally bad implementation that doesn't follow LKML guidelines, but I like the idea" is what a lot of it comes down to. Calling something bad is not a mortal sin; if it sucks it just... sucks. The specifics of how you respond to that come ultimately down to a complex set of interpersonal relationships, but given how this was proposed, the tone of "yeah don't like this implementation because it does thinks I think make zero sense and you broke LKML rules, go back to the drawing board" seems adequate. I do think that there might be a bit of cultural dissonance at play though. The way the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) tend to handle feedback is just... a lot more "couched" in niceties. That's just... not as much the case in other countries. I can only speak for Europe but if you get feedback here, you get the feedback very directly - this is what the other person thinks of it and if they actively dislike it, you will hear it. In the UK/US this tends to be a lot more muted from what I've seen - actively calling out bad things as bad is discouraged (a frequent example is when someone says "it's alright" and they actually meant "I really dislike this idea" - in Europe you'll often just hear the latter), so when someone actually uses direct language it's seen as too aggressive.

endisneigh 3y ago

So what? Third parties should be treated respectfully, or do you disagree?

noirscape 3y ago
Certainly. That said, I do think that Linus Torvalds is treating the Google employee respectfully here, given the dynamics and context at play. Firstly: Torvalds does not owe Google anything beyond basic respect for sending him a patch; they don't pay his wages, nor does the LKML have Google as a business customer (Google does donate to the LF but only 3% of the LFs actual funding goes to kernel development and therefore Torvalds' wages). That basic respect is given - Torvalds does not insult or demean the submitters technical skills, merely the implementation they ended up going with. Secondly: As far as I can tell, this proposal was brought forward straight up with an implementation, rather than consulting beforehand with the Mailing List on if this is a good idea and what such a contribution would look like in the context of the kernel (given that the implementation isn't a bugfix). Especially for more "mature"/"large" projects, dumping patch proposals that add maintenance overhead as a form of "discussion" as a submission tends to be seen as a hostile move. This is just general FOSS good behavior and from what I can tell this patch went through Googles internal discussion lists rather than the LKML. Google, perhaps to some suprise, does not own the LKML. The rudeness in that regard is mutual and was arguably started by the patch being submitted in that manner to begin with. (Something which is indicated further in the thread by the fact that the author attempted to start a new patch series for their proposal rather than discuss the feedback they got, showcasing they have little care for actually working with the LKML to get the patch merged). Thirdly: I frankly... just don't think this feedback is that harsh in the light of that dynamic? Sure, some of it uses strong language but I've been on the receiving end of way worse from university teachers and the like. "This is a fundamentally bad implementation that doesn't follow LKML guidelines, but I like the idea" is what a lot of it comes down to. Calling something bad is not a mortal sin; if it sucks it just... sucks. The specifics of how you respond to that come ultimately down to a complex set of interpersonal relationships, but given how this was proposed, the tone of "yeah don't like this implementation because it does thinks I think make zero sense and you broke LKML rules, go back to the drawing board" seems adequate. I do think that there might be a bit of cultural dissonance at play though. The way the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) tend to handle feedback is just... a lot more "couched" in niceties. That's just... not as much the case in other countries. I can only speak for Europe but if you get feedback here, you get the feedback very directly - this is what the other person thinks of it and if they actively dislike it, you will hear it. In the UK/US this tends to be a lot more muted from what I've seen - actively calling out bad things as bad is discouraged (a frequent example is when someone says "it's alright" and they actually meant "I really dislike this idea" - in Europe you'll often just hear the latter), so when someone actually uses direct language it's seen as too aggressive.