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. > > Reading this I feel that you have imputed all sorts of motives which > are not there.
Maybe they're not their from you're perspective, but there's a lot of questions there for you to answer if it's not actually the case. > > > > 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. > > Well my hope was that we could make some progress and I did take up > your suggestion. But it seems to have just resulted in creating more > disagreement. I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but it seems you > were genuinely surprised by what I wrote. Because I was somewhat because it wasn't my understanding from what at least my intentions from my understanding of what you wanted to do. > I don't want to suggest that I had a clear idea or plan about any of > this when I set up my tree, other than trying to figure out a way to > unblock my efforts. But in writing up this Concept idea I thought it > would add real value to the project. I still recall that you shot down > standard boot and that was around the beginning of all this. I'm not sure what "standard boot" means in this context, that term is used in a number of contexts in early boot firmware. I think of standard boot as UEFI, there's also you bootstd and a number of other options. You would have to provide more context. But I am ultimately allowed to have an opinion, as are you, and everyone else in the community, some ideas individuals think are good, some bad, ultimately the community as a whole will generally end up with the overwhelming opinion that somethings are good and they ultimately land as a feature in the project, thinks like DM and UEFI I think are good examples of that, some ideas don't get that backing and shouldn't land just because they exist in code, and that is also alright. Ultimately I would hope that an individual takes their ideas to the community sooner rather than later before the individual does a large amount of work so as to not invest large amounts of time in something that the community isn't bought into. Peter
