On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 02:50:21PM +0200, Jori Koolstra wrote: > > Op 13-10-2026 14:38 CEST schreef Laurent Pinchart: > > 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 you were there at LPC!
It took a decade between my first kernel contribution and my first time at LPC. And luck played a great role there, it could easily have taken longer. > Sorry, was planning to go to your talk, but > couldn't :( . Would have loved to chat with you. > > I doubt how many people are like this. You have to contribute A LOT of > time to get to a meaningful level of understanding of even just one > subsystem And that's what people have been doing since the start of the kernel. > , even with LLM support. I know some people don't travel, but > I didn't suggest that conference attendance should be the only avenue > to participate. > > > > but Linux Foundation is already very supportive of funding people. > > > > How many people with very little history of kernel contributions has the > > LF funded ? > > Well, me, for instance :) I note a count of 1 out of thousands. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
