Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 28, 2017 22:51 UTC (Wed) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
In reply to: Ripples from Stack Clash by nix
Parent article: Ripples from Stack Clash

> Apparently this offer was made.

no, no such offer was made. the best Kees could offer at the time (about 2 years ago) was to talk to the CII (he said google's decision to compete with us instead of cooperation was made above his pay grade) and they didn't answer my question whether they'd be willing to fund the necessary hours to get this work done. but yeah, don't let the facts stop you from your conspiracy theorizing ;).

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 28, 2017 23:59 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (6 responses)

> no, no such offer was made. the best Kees could offer at the time (about 2 years ago) was to talk to the CII (he said google's decision to compete with us instead of cooperation was made above his pay grade) and they didn't answer my question whether they'd be willing to fund the necessary hours to get this work done. but yeah, don't let the facts stop you from your conspiracy theorizing ;).

Oh, please.

Spender has explicitly stated, here on LWN (and undoubtedly elsewhere) that he would _never_ accept funding from any entity associated with Linux Foundation, including the CII -- in response to the CII asking him to write a proposal in order to get the funding ball rolling.

That sort of response is a good example of what is known as a "self-inflicted career limiting move".

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 29, 2017 0:15 UTC (Thu) by PaXTeam (guest, #24616) [Link]

> [...] the CII asking him to write a proposal in order to get the funding ball rolling.

the CII did what? that never happened, you must have misunderstood something. i was the one who asked on cii-discuss in august 2015 how this whole thing could work (before investing my free time into writing a proposal) and got no real response, spender was never part of that discussion.

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 29, 2017 11:35 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (4 responses)

spender has stated that, but it's never been clear if he stated that _because_ he had been so antagonised/insulted by being left out in the cold, with other people being paid (presumably well) to work on code he wrote.

It is obvious that that would induce a degree of bitterness and even hatred. The chain of cause and effect is not clear though.

Further, regardless of prior events, it would still be good to try fix this situation, and find some way to navigate around the social and corporate politics so that spender, et al., can earn a living from their security work. Given that that work has clear value, as there are others being paid to take that work and upstream it.

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 29, 2017 13:32 UTC (Thu) by ms-tg (subscriber, #89231) [Link] (3 responses)

> Further, regardless of prior events, it would still be good to try fix this situation, and find some way to navigate around the social and corporate politics so that spender, et al., can earn a living from their security work. Given that that work has clear value, as there are others being paid to take that work and upstream it.

I am seeing this the same way. So, here's a second modest proposal, one sketch of an approach that could possibly help fix the situation:

1. Problem: Linus's belittling and antagonism for years

Solution: Linus writes a formal, personal apology. Quoting all of his derogatory comments that were later proved false (in a concise way), and saying, "mea culpa", please accept our community apology and come back into the fold and work with us in good faith.

2. Problem: No clear paths forward.

Solution: Ask (don't tell, don't make assumptions) for jointly-designed Next Steps.

In a public forum, Linus in tandem with someone at Red Hat and someone at Linux Foundation or other funding-source formally write a short public letter making clear that they are open to paying, over a number of years, for Brad and Pax Team's time to work diligently with the community to upstream the source. And *ask them* for a suggestion of how that relationship might work. Listen to what they say -- see if there are solutions that meet all interests.

Perhaps there's some reason why this sort of common sense approach cannot work -- would love to know more?

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 29, 2017 23:25 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (1 responses)

>1. Problem: Linus's belittling and antagonism for years

>Solution: Linus writes a formal, personal apology. Quoting all of his derogatory comments that were later proved false (in a concise way), and saying, "mea culpa", please accept our community apology and come back into the fold and work with us in good faith.

And once Linus has apologised for being Finnish, grsecurity can apologise for being American.

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jul 3, 2017 18:33 UTC (Mon) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]

I don't see what nationality has to do with this. (Also, Linus is a naturalised American.)

Ripples from Stack Clash

Posted Jun 30, 2017 9:44 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

I think it's fair to say there's blame on both sides, and both sides feel the unreasonableness of the other makes it impossible to work with them. As a result, I don't think any proposed solution that involves requiring one party to unilaterally accept all blame and apologise to the other will work. Working /around/ assignation of blame and first starting to (re-)build some kind of working relationship (via intermediaries perhaps), while avoiding getting into blame and who is wrong for what, is usually step 1 in conflict resolution.

Find a good intermediary, and finding the resources, would be the first steps, I'd imagine.