The kernel's code of conflict

Yes, we were. My reasons for not ACKing that thing (and I'm actually surprised that it wasn't the most common reaction): no examples whatsoever of TAB actually doing that kind of mediation - unsurprisingly, since it hadn't done any yet.

<viro> FWIW, what makes me somewhat nervous about it is that it covers everything from "... and that address routes to /dev/null (and I endorse that)" to "... and a crew with baseball bats will descend on the offender to explain the error of his ways (and I endorse that)"
<viro> thus the question about the examples of previous mediations in such situations

which got basically, "understood, but we really have no examples yet" in response. I don't like signing off on something _that_ vague - not because I expect either of the variants I've mentioned to materialise, but because there's a whole lot in between and I won't blindly endorse the entire range.

My reading of that thing is "Not everything is a flame, but if you feel real bad - send complaints to $ADDRESS. Try to trigger fewer complaints". What's missing is any information about the handling of such complaints - not just how anything could or could not be enforced, but much more basic "how does TAB end up dealing with such cases". And consisting of well-meaning folks doesn't cover it, obviously.

No examples to judge by - no ACK...