Merging Allwinner support [LWN.net]

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 21, 2013 8:09 UTC (Fri) by boog (subscriber, #30882)
In reply to: Merging Allwinner support by roc
Parent article: Merging Allwinner support

I think there are two separate issues here. Most people seem interested in criticising Leighton's interactional behaviour. Instead, I wanted to make the point that I see value, originality, progress and a (perhaps surprising) chance of success in his current project, which is certainly very worthwhile from a free software point of view. Nothing regrading the underlying project motivitaing Leighton appeared in the article, giving the impression that he was simply criticising kernel developers for fun, which I consider a real misrepresentation of the situation (it may accurately reflect the impression gained by kernel developers).

For those (like roc) particularly interested in discussing the social aspects rather than the underlying project, I guess I can imagine that a younger Leighton would have proved disruptive in larger projects. However, despite the apparently impulsive approach, the current project clearly results from some strategic thinking and long-term effort. I've been following/lurking the eoma project for a while and I've seen no behaviour that isn't motivated by good intentions and - to me - a defensible analysis of the current situation. In the latest kerfuffle, he was/is trying to draw the attention of developers to what he perceives to be a fundamental problem in arm hardware. That there is currently a problem is hardly in doubt. The final outcome and solution (if any) is not so easy to predict, but I think it would be hasty to say that Leighton is obviously wrong.

to post comments

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 21, 2013 11:53 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

I think people are too eager to criticise others when many are (or have been) in the same boat. Furthermore, the climate of discussion around many projects does lead people to be confrontational instead of conciliatory, so many people perceive that the best approach is to just demand or assert things rather than to gently tease out advice and opinions and to gradually persuade and encourage people to agree on the right course of action. In this particular case, the perceived urgency of the situation didn't encourage the apparently necessary tiptoeing around, and the usual "when it's done" responses are probably hard to stomach when an opportunity seems about to be lost.

With regard to reputations, I've dealt with people that no-one else wants to deal with, and although such people can exhibit annoying patterns of behaviour, one does come away with the impression that such people are genuinely trying to improve things and are not just playing some "trolling" game for the fun of it. Sadly, a lot of established contributors to projects seem to have the impression that every newcomer or outsider is by default only there to see some of the glamour rub off on them, and thus they treat newcomers with suspicion rather than take advantage of the opportunity of someone showing up with enthusiasm for that project. Such enthusiasm can drain away pretty quickly, after all.

I'm sure that a lot of people don't regard such matters as a problem, but I've also seen sentiments expressed in favour of blocking or censoring "difficult" people in a community, so I don't think anyone should be complacent about this kind of thing at all.

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 23, 2013 20:01 UTC (Sun) by mato (guest, #964) [Link] (3 responses)

I second this. I've also been lurking on debian-arm and know of Leighton only from his efforts on the EOMA/Rhombus project where he has indeed been putting a lot of long-term efforts towards a worthwhile goal.

Further, having done some significant business in Korea, I'm inclined to think that the "suggestion" Leighton is being ridiculed for in the article, namely

that he apologize on behalf of the Linux kernel community for "not consulting with you (allwinner) on the decision to only accept device tree" elicited both amazement and anger—for obvious reasons

in fact shows that he is in a position "on the ground" at Allwinner and knows how the local culture works. In Korea (and China, Taiwan, Japan, ...) there is an extremely strong culture of conflict avoidance and fear of "losing face". Leighton's suggestion would be exactly the kind of statement I would make to Allwinner senior management were I in a position to be negotiating a situation like this.

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 24, 2013 18:26 UTC (Mon) by boog (subscriber, #30882) [Link] (2 responses)

Indeed. Although not apparent in the summary email quoted in the article, it was clear on arm-netbook that the "apology" bit simply emerged as a presentational gambit, suggested moreover by Leighton's associates, not by him. Seems it is the done thing when asking favours from influential people or companies.

The whole thing was completely overblown. Leighton was in a position to influence people meeting Allwinner top brass and simply wished to make the most of the meeting for the benefit of free software, albeit at very short notice. The time pressure short circuited the background explanations that it turns out are essential when dealing with kernel developers.

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 25, 2013 16:24 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (1 responses)

The amusing thing about this, of course, is that one must apparently also "apologise" on behalf of successful SoC vendors for not consulting with kernel developers. Everybody likes to think they are free of cultural baggage, I'm sure.

Merging Allwinner support

Posted Jun 25, 2013 17:05 UTC (Tue) by nevets (subscriber, #11875) [Link]

Apologize for what?

The kernel is GPL, you can do whatever you like with it as long as you continue to provide the changes under the GPL guidelines. I don't see the kernel developers saying "you must apologize to us for not working with us". I saw several comments to let them keep their work out of tree. Their work is also under the GPL, and can be pulled in properly by anyone that wants to follow the Linux Kernel rules.

The whole "apologize" comment had no place in that conversation. If Luke needs to follow social customs and "apologize" on behalf of the kernel developers to gain favor from the managers at Allwinner, he could do that off the public lists.

In other words, if you are dealing as a liaison for two different cultures, you need to act the part of the culture you are dealing with. For Asian companies, that usually means being very humble and playing the political correctness game.

For dealing with the Linux community, just give out the facts. Saying that a decision has to be made in 4 days, but never say what will happen when the time runs out, as well as pushing, we need to accept the other implementation that DT already has without any technical reason but "it works for a successful company", shows that Luke didn't properly handle the situation at all.

There's no need to have to give an "apology" to the kernel community. Just state what has happened and see what you get. The answer was pretty quick: Device Tree, or show us why their system is better for *everyone*. Also, other workarounds were given too, doing a script for the conversion of fex to DT. But it did seems that Luke wasn't happy with these answers, and only wanted the kernel developers to change their mind. Which he gave no real reason to do so.

Perhaps he's doing a great job at pushing Open Source in otherwise closed companies. But he should also know how to deal with the Open Source developers in a more productive and diplomatic way.