On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 01:19:40PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > Op 12-10-2026 17:42 CEST schreef Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]>: > > > > +cc the participants from that thread FYI. The original patch is at [2]. > > Thanks, Lorenzo. > > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 12:05:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > > On 09/10/2026 10:31, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > The Maintainers Summit reached consensus to deprecate the Assisted-by > > > > tag. Remove the documentation requiring it. > > > > > > Please provide here some sort of arguments used in that summit > > > consensus/discussion. This basically reverts/changes previous consensus > > > [1], which is fine itself, but it lacks reasoning. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/2026070224-unholy-commode-cf45@gregkh/ > > > > Thanks for linking that! It is important to ack previous discussion on > > this. Also LWN article is up now at [3]. > > > > I'm less bothered than you might think by this change. > > > > The tag's useful for push back on review, but the only long-term strategy > > for > > slop is to aggressively ignore it. > > > > Linus has made that clear that that's fine. > > > > What kills the project is having 1,000 slop submissions that 2 or 3 people > > have > > to do something with. > > > > The only long-term solution to that is to hit mark read 1,000 times :) > > There's a way to nuke drive-by authors and that is to require them to do > some kind of "proof-of-effort." So you want to contribute to the kernel? > Good, come to one of the OSS conferences, or LPC, or have some well-known > maintainer vouch for you, or do the kernel mentorship program. The point > is not that this cannot be gamed, but that the "gaming" in itself requires > some kind of investment, like proof-of-work. > > We may miss the savant that for whatever reason cannot show up to a > conference,
We'll miss all the contributors who started small and put time and effort in learning. I'm pretty sure that's a majority of the people on the CC list, and it certainly includes myself. Making it much more difficult for true hackers to contribute to the kernel, including by requiring paying for travel to conferences, is the kind of policy that would make me stop contributing to the kernel. > but Linux Foundation is already very supportive of funding people. How many people with very little history of kernel contributions has the LF funded ? > And besides, > Linus has already made it clear that we can expect of people to be able to > grow > into serious community members (which may include being able to effort time > and/or > money for LLM access.) Time won't buy you a ticket to LPC. > This would solve most slop immediately, and we will know about LLM found bugs > anyway from cooperation with Anthropic and just the maintainers using LLMs. > > > Sasha - maybe worth linking the LWN article now it's up in the commit > > message > > and adding a little more detail around the decision? > > > > Otherwise LGTM: > > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Stoakes (ARM) <[email protected]> > > > > -- > > Cheers, Lorenzo > > > > [2]:https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > [3]:https://lwn.net/Articles/1099594/ -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
