Didm't mean to leave the list off my reply.
On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 at 16:18, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > In the follow up private discussions about it after it was clear as a > > > whole that the PLC was uncomfortable with a specific websiite (we > > > don't plan on supporting forks, would we provide that feature for all > > > forks?) for concept. I offered the idea of a custodians tree to allow > > > you to develop and maintain the features that you were preparing for > > > upstream in your concept tree to enable easier collaboration for those > > > that wished to work with you on those specific features. Maybe I > > > wasn't clear enough in my communications but it was never intended to > > > be the location to host a fork. > > > > A fork would be something which forks off mainline and goes its > > separate way. Concept is not a fork. Perhaps a constantly merged, > > multi-feature branch would be a better term. Please read my original > > email again on this point and I'm happy to explain it further. Quite a > > few series have already found their way to mainline. > > > > > So I think you need to revist what the idea of concept actually is and > > > come back to the community with an adjusted proposal. > > > > It seems that you are rejecting the whole idea of a Concept tree (my > > original post on this thread). Can you please confirm that? But if you > > have ideas on how it could work with modifications, please share them. > > There must be some common ground somewhere. > > Nope, not at all rejecting it, what I was saying is that I don't > believe you have got the community to buy into your idea. I don't see > it as the PLC's job to reject/accept it, as I've always stated it's a > community decision, of which I am but one voice. > > On ideas I believe I have already shared the idea of working branches > for features you believe should be in mainline U-Boot. Outside of that > I don't have other ideas, but it's also not my concept. > > > > First though, I repeat again, would you please explain to the > > > community why you are holding the u-boot.oirg domain hostage to try > > > and force the PLC to accept an idea that we have been explicit about > > > the need to get the community to buy into this "concept". I think the > > > community deserves an answer. > > > > This is a bit of a one-sided view. The real situation is that for many > > years to implement major features and improvements in U-Boot, but that > > became progressively more difficult as Tom started refusing to accept > > series and I have no ability to get PRs applied. Perhaps I was naive > > to expect our good working relationship would continue forever, but I > > have contributed a huge amount to U-Boot and having the rug pulled out > > felt very unfair, not to say bad for the project. Regarding the > > So that gives you a right to hold the domain hostage why? > > Also your past contributions doesn't give you a free pass to force the > landing of patch series that you think should be in there. That's not > how open source works, it's certainly not how this project works. > > I think you need to step back and ask yourself why you're finding it > hard to get patches reviewed and accepted. > > To give you an idea I have had numerous community members complain to > me about you, I am sure Tom has similar, some are to the point where > the only way they will deal with your code is if it's part of the > subsystems they maintain and hence it ends up in their patchwork queue > and otherwise they actively filter mails out from you so they don't > see them. I don't keep a count or details but it's well over 5 and I > may even have to start using something other than fingers. > > To put in straight forward terms, a lot of people are fed up with your > behaviour, then when you get called out for it, or Tom has to have a > conversation with you about it rather than addressing the actual issue > you "take some time out" and come back a few months later without > actually addressing your behaviour. > > Now you're holding the domain hostage which is similar bad behaviour. > Not to even mention that you registered a US U-Boot charity and > attempted to register the trademark all without telling *ANYONE* in > the community what you were doing. Did you think you could just walk > away and keep the project "Because of all your contributions"? Again, > while you have contributed a lot I think the wider community of > contributors as a whole have contributed more, and by contribute I > don't just mean purely on the lines of code, but reviews, > architectural discussions and all sorts of other things that actually > make a community and it gives you no right of ownership over the > project. > > I'm sorry Simon but the way to get your patches reviewed is to rebuild > your standing with the community not by trying to force an official > recognition of a fork by holding the domain hostage. > > > domain, I have offered to point subdomains to anywhere you wish, which > > would resolve this. In the meantime I have mirrored the website and > > moved various things away from the domain. But I cannot support the > > sort of split that happened with Barebox, if that is your goal. > > And as I've stated we can't use it that way, the SFC has requirements > around the project's assets (which include things like domains) as > Neal has explained and I am fairly certain as has the SFC. Also > there's dynamic infrastructure where we need to be able to move things > with little notice so it would cause outages without the control of > the domain. > > > I don't mind hosting a separate tree somewhere else, if that is your > > preference, but it needs to have some relationship with U-Boot and a > > clear understanding of what that relationship is. If that is not > > possible / acceptable, then I suppose we should close this thread. I'm > > skeptical of our ability to resolve complex things on mailing lists in > > cany case, although I started this thread at your request. > > As I've stated numerous times before you need to get the community to > buy into this. > > You have kept this "secret" from the community for a very long time, > and by secret you've not been open about your intentions, until we > explicitly asked you to go and explain it to the community. > > > > > > U-Boot has friction also because we don't have enough reviewers or > > > > > maintainers compared to the number of contributors. I don't see how > > > > > you > > > > > plan on addressing that by maintaining Concept by yourself (with an AI > > > > > I'm assuming). > > > > > I appreciate you're possibly one of the most if not the most active > > > > > reviewer on the ML and that there's not much more you can do to > > > > > improve > > > > > the situation aside from recruiting more people to review. > > > > > > > > Yes I have generally been the most active reviewer over the last 10 > > > > years or so, although sometimes I have burnout and stop. > > > > > > > > Here's how people become reviewers, IMO: > > > > > > > > Step 1: Punter has a problem, debugs it and conceives a fix / feature > > > > to resolve it > > > > Step 2: Punter sends a patch or short series > > > > > > I'm not sure it's appropriate to call our developers and contributors > > > "Punters" [1] please be respectful of people. > > > > It's a pretty common term in the UK, at least, certainly not > > disrespectful from my understanding or intention, using it to mean a > > customer willing to buy or try out the product. I wasn't aware of the > > urban definitions and now I wish I hadn't just read them! > > As a person that has lived in the UK for over 20 years, and an > antipodean, I am well aware of why you used the term, but even in the > UK it can be considered derogatory, but we are a community that is a > lot wider than that, it after all the project evolved out of Germany, > and we have contributors from a wide community that isn't associated > with the nuances of the UK and related cultures so I suggest the use > of terms like newbies and contributors that aren't open to > interpretations because not everyone is aware of UK/antipodean > specific nomenclature. > > Just like your behaviour as a supposed leader in this community you > also need to be aware of the nuances of your language. > > > > > Step 3a: People review the code and Tom accepts some version of it > > > > Step 3b: Patch is rejected, or people are mean or dismissive, or don't > > > > understand the problem, or the effort gets too great (punter exits > > > > here and goes to write his own firmware in Rust :-) > > > > Step 5: Punter sees a related patch from someone else and decides to > > > > reply with some thoughts > > > > Step 6: Punter starts getting interested in more areas of U-Boot, > > > > sending patches and reviewing, etc. > > > > > > I think going from a single patch to a firmware written in rust is a > > > bit of a fanciful stretch. > > > > > > From experience people involved in the project review things when: > > > 1) They know the topic or the hardware > > > 2) Are interested in the features or functionality provided > > > 3) Are a maintainer of a device or subsystem > > > 4) Wish to assist > > > 5) they have hardware they can test on > > > 6) they wish to scratch an iitch. > > > > That's fine, we have a somewhat different experience. From my years of > > watching this, it mostly starts with people seeing their code accepted > > (motivated by your #6). > > I've been involved in U-Boot, whether that was on this list I don't > remember, since I started to make Fedora run on arm around 2010 with > the purchase of a Beagle-XM. It has been a wild ride. Experiences are > always different, I was involved in the original distro-boot > implementation and trying to get that upstream. Ultimately my > experience and your experience doesn't devalue either person's > contributions or the rest of the communities. > > Regards, > Peter
