linux-ext4 - Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <72708005-0810-1957-1e58-5b70779ab6db@toxicpanda.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 11:08:36 -0500
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     lsf-pc <lsf-pc@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
        Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSFMMBPF TOPIC] Killing LSFMMBPF

On 3/6/20 10:56 AM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 09:35:41AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> This has been a topic that I've been thinking about a lot recently, mostly
>> because of the giant amount of work that has been organizing LSFMMBPF.  I
>> was going to wait until afterwards to bring it up, hoping that maybe it was
>> just me being done with the whole process and that time would give me a
>> different perspective, but recent discussions has made it clear I'm not the
>> only one.....
> 
> I suggest that we try to decouple the question of should we have
> LSF/MM/BPF in 2020 and COVID-19, with the question of what should
> LSF/MM/BPF (perhaps in some transfigured form) should look like in
> 2021 and in the future.
> 

Yes this is purely about 2021 and the future, not 2020.

> A lot of the the concerns expressed in this e-mails are ones that I
> have been concerned about, especially:
> 
>> 2) There are so many of us....
> 
>> 3) Half the people I want to talk to aren't even in the room.  This may be a
>> uniquely file system track problem, but most of my work is in btrfs, and I
>> want to talk to my fellow btrfs developers....
> 
>> 4) Presentations....
> 
> These *exactly* mirror the dynamic that we saw with the Kernel Summit,
> and how we've migrated to a the Maintainer's Summit with a Kernel
> centric track which is currently colocated with Plumbers.
> 
> I think it is still useful to have something where we reach consensus
> on multi-subsystem contentious changes.  But I think those topics
> could probably fit within a day or maybe a half day.  Does that sound
> familiar?  That's essentially what we now have with the Maintainer'st
> Summit.
> 
> The problem with Plumbers is that it's really, really full.  Not
> having invitations doesn't magically go away; Plumbers last year had
> to deal with long waitlist, and strugglinig to make sure that all of
> the critical people who need be present so that the various Miniconfs
> could be successful.

Ah ok, I haven't done plumbers in a few years, I knew they would get full but I 
didn't think it was that bad.

> 
> This is why I've been pushing so hard for a second Linux systems
> focused event in the first half of the year.  I think if we colocate
> the set of topics which are currently in LSF/MM, the more file system
> specific presentations, the ext4/xfs/btrfs mini-summits/working
> sessions, and the maintainer's summit / kernel summit, we would have
> critical mass.  And I am sure there will be *plenty* of topics left
> over for Plumbers.
>

I'd be down for this.  Would you leave the thing open so anybody can register, 
or would you still have an invitation system?  I really, really despise the 
invitation system just because it's inherently self limiting.  However I do want 
to make sure we are getting relevant people in the room, and not making it this 
"oh shit, I forgot to register, and now the conference is full" sort of 
situations.  Thanks,

Josef