Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 04:27:57AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't > > seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned > > that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in > > Brazil. > > My understanding is that lawyers from the Linux Foundation have gone > over both the CoC and as well as the changes in this patchset, and > that this happened before they were sent out. That is correct.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 04:27:57AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't > > seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned > > that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in > > Brazil. > > My understanding is that lawyers from the Linux Foundation have gone > over both the CoC and as well as the changes in this patchset, and > that this happened before they were sent out. That is correct.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't > seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned > that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in > Brazil. My understanding is that lawyers from the Linux Foundation have gone over both the CoC and as well as the changes in this patchset, and that this happened before they were sent out. - Ted
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 03:14:20PM -0400, jonsm...@gmail.com wrote: > > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't > seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned > that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in > Brazil. My understanding is that lawyers from the Linux Foundation have gone over both the CoC and as well as the changes in this patchset, and that this happened before they were sent out. - Ted
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Alan Cox wrote: > > I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a > kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen' Kernel summit or Maintainer summit is covered by the CoC of the conference it is attached to. Thanks, tglx
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Alan Cox wrote: > > I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a > kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen' Kernel summit or Maintainer summit is covered by the CoC of the conference it is attached to. Thanks, tglx
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
> > Data protection law, reporting laws in some > > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to remain > > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > OK - you seem to be talking about keeping the incident and reporter > confidential from the person reported against. > Certainly the person reported against has to have the incident > identified to them, so that part is not confidential. Many legal > jurisdictions require that the accused can know their accuser. > But these things come into play mostly when items have veered > into legal territory. Most violation reports are not in the territory. > There's no legal requirement that the Code of Conduct committee > tell someone who it was that said they were rude on the mailing list. The 'who said' is generally safe (except from the it's in court case - which is fine when that happens the legal process deals with it). The other details are not so while someone accused of something might not know who said it they can ask for what personal data (which would include that email with names etc scrubbed). You can possibly fight that in court of course, if you've got lots of money and nothing better to do for six weeks. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents directly > > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to prove > > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > > nothing was done. > > The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers > online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits > and Bugzilla). I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen' Seriously ? Alan
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
> > Data protection law, reporting laws in some > > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to remain > > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > OK - you seem to be talking about keeping the incident and reporter > confidential from the person reported against. > Certainly the person reported against has to have the incident > identified to them, so that part is not confidential. Many legal > jurisdictions require that the accused can know their accuser. > But these things come into play mostly when items have veered > into legal territory. Most violation reports are not in the territory. > There's no legal requirement that the Code of Conduct committee > tell someone who it was that said they were rude on the mailing list. The 'who said' is generally safe (except from the it's in court case - which is fine when that happens the legal process deals with it). The other details are not so while someone accused of something might not know who said it they can ask for what personal data (which would include that email with names etc scrubbed). You can possibly fight that in court of course, if you've got lots of money and nothing better to do for six weeks. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents directly > > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to prove > > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > > nothing was done. > > The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers > online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits > and Bugzilla). I don't see it specifically stating that 'If someone is offensive at a kernel summit we are going to refuse to listen' Seriously ? Alan
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > this bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > and wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in > some countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > remain confidential from the person it was reported against is living > in dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. I've got a solution for this: the patches I've been curating also modify the section so the merger will look like what I have below. The intent of the series I'm curating was only the beginning to show desire to change in 4.19 but to correct the obvious defect before we started the debate, so after suitable discussion, this one can be the final set. > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > the catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > directly to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced > to sit on multiple reports of physical abuse from different people > about someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable > to prove anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the > media why nothing was done. I think we should debate that. Most legal systems provide significant deference to victims wishing for confidentiality and we should both respect that and remember that an automatic crime report is a significant deterrent to vulnerable people in a lot of places. James --- diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index eec768471a4d..8913851dab89 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -59,19 +59,27 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -Reporting -= +Enforcement +=== Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at -. All complaints will be reviewed and -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident (except where -required by law). +reported by contacting the Code of Conduct Committee at +. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated +and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident +(except where required by law). Further details of specific enforcement +policies may be posted separately. + Attribution === This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html + +Interpretation +== + +See the :ref:`code_of_conduct_interpretation` document for how the Linux +kernel community will be interpreting this document.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > this bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > and wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in > some countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > remain confidential from the person it was reported against is living > in dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. I've got a solution for this: the patches I've been curating also modify the section so the merger will look like what I have below. The intent of the series I'm curating was only the beginning to show desire to change in 4.19 but to correct the obvious defect before we started the debate, so after suitable discussion, this one can be the final set. > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > the catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > directly to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced > to sit on multiple reports of physical abuse from different people > about someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable > to prove anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the > media why nothing was done. I think we should debate that. Most legal systems provide significant deference to victims wishing for confidentiality and we should both respect that and remember that an automatic crime report is a significant deterrent to vulnerable people in a lot of places. James --- diff --git a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst index eec768471a4d..8913851dab89 100644 --- a/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst +++ b/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst @@ -59,19 +59,27 @@ address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event. Representation of a project may be further defined and clarified by project maintainers. -Reporting -= +Enforcement +=== Instances of abusive, harassing, or otherwise unacceptable behavior may be -reported by contacting the Technical Advisory Board (TAB) at -. All complaints will be reviewed and -investigated and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and -appropriate to the circumstances. The TAB is obligated to maintain -confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident (except where -required by law). +reported by contacting the Code of Conduct Committee at +. All complaints will be reviewed and investigated +and will result in a response that is deemed necessary and appropriate +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident +(except where required by law). Further details of specific enforcement +policies may be posted separately. + Attribution === This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 1.4, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/1/4/code-of-conduct.html + +Interpretation +== + +See the :ref:`code_of_conduct_interpretation` document for how the Linux +kernel community will be interpreting this document.
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote: > The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers > online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits > and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums > that are susceptible to executing physical abuse. Also, they are > all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail. So I don't think > the > comparison is very apt here. > -- Tim If that is the case, then why does this need to go into the Linux kernel in the first place? The mailing lists, the kernel.org git repository, and bugzilla presumably all have "terms of use" pages that could specify the expected behaviour very explicitly, and could specify how arbitration works as part of those terms of use (and if enforcement is required, then it could specify legal venues etc). IOW: if the scope is just communication online, then I would think there are better tools for that. Putting a code of conduct into the kernel code itself wants to be justified by more than just regulating online behaviour. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:24 +, tim.b...@sony.com wrote: > The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers > online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits > and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums > that are susceptible to executing physical abuse. Also, they are > all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail. So I don't think > the > comparison is very apt here. > -- Tim If that is the case, then why does this need to go into the Linux kernel in the first place? The mailing lists, the kernel.org git repository, and bugzilla presumably all have "terms of use" pages that could specify the expected behaviour very explicitly, and could specify how arbitration works as part of those terms of use (and if enforcement is required, then it could specify legal venues etc). IOW: if the scope is just communication online, then I would think there are better tools for that. Putting a code of conduct into the kernel code itself wants to be justified by more than just regulating online behaviour. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com
RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
> -Original Message- > From: Alan Cox > > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left this > bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading and > wrong to imply they can. I disagree with this assessment. We have managed to keep most stuff confidential to the general public in the past, to the point where it has been argued that the TAB have not been transparent enough. We're trying to address that issue with the section about quarterly anonymized reports. > Data protection law, reporting laws in some > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to remain > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. OK - you seem to be talking about keeping the incident and reporter confidential from the person reported against. Certainly the person reported against has to have the incident identified to them, so that part is not confidential. Many legal jurisdictions require that the accused can know their accuser. But these things come into play mostly when items have veered into legal territory. Most violation reports are not in the territory. There's no legal requirement that the Code of Conduct committee tell someone who it was that said they were rude on the mailing list. > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. That might be a good to add. It would be helpful, IMHO, to re-visit the patch that's been floating around and see if it can be added on top of this. > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got the > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents directly > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to prove > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > nothing was done. The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums that are susceptible to executing physical abuse. Also, they are all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail. So I don't think the comparison is very apt here. -- Tim
RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
> -Original Message- > From: Alan Cox > > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left this > bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading and > wrong to imply they can. I disagree with this assessment. We have managed to keep most stuff confidential to the general public in the past, to the point where it has been argued that the TAB have not been transparent enough. We're trying to address that issue with the section about quarterly anonymized reports. > Data protection law, reporting laws in some > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to remain > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. OK - you seem to be talking about keeping the incident and reporter confidential from the person reported against. Certainly the person reported against has to have the incident identified to them, so that part is not confidential. Many legal jurisdictions require that the accused can know their accuser. But these things come into play mostly when items have veered into legal territory. Most violation reports are not in the territory. There's no legal requirement that the Code of Conduct committee tell someone who it was that said they were rude on the mailing list. > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. That might be a good to add. It would be helpful, IMHO, to re-visit the patch that's been floating around and see if it can be added on top of this. > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got the > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents directly > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to prove > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > nothing was done. The scope of the code of conduct basically means that it covers online interactions (communication via mailing list, git commits and Bugzilla). Not to be flippant, but those are hardly mediums that are susceptible to executing physical abuse. Also, they are all mediums that leave a persistent, public trail. So I don't think the comparison is very apt here. -- Tim
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > > to > > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > incident. > > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > > +separately. > > > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > > this > > bit broken. > > > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > > and > > wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in some > > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > > remain > > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. > > > > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > > the > > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > > directly > > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to > > prove > > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > > nothing was done. > > > > ...and then you get into questions about how this committee will > respond to queries from said law enforcement, and indeed to which legal > systems the committee will or will not report incidents. > > Why would we want to be going down the path of trying to handle reports > about "serious incidents" in the first place? That seems way out of > scope for a code of conduct arbitration scheme. Even attempting to > counsel people as to whether or not they should report incidents can > get you in trouble in many parts of the world. > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in Brazil. > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com > > -- Jon Smirl jonsm...@gmail.com
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 2:47 PM Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > > to > > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > > incident. > > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > > +separately. > > > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > > this > > bit broken. > > > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > > and > > wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in some > > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > > remain > > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. > > > > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > > the > > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > > directly > > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to > > prove > > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > > nothing was done. > > > > ...and then you get into questions about how this committee will > respond to queries from said law enforcement, and indeed to which legal > systems the committee will or will not report incidents. > > Why would we want to be going down the path of trying to handle reports > about "serious incidents" in the first place? That seems way out of > scope for a code of conduct arbitration scheme. Even attempting to > counsel people as to whether or not they should report incidents can > get you in trouble in many parts of the world. > Which is why the lawyers need to go over this document and I haven't seen anything posted from them. In the same vein Mauro is concerned that the way this is code is written it is a binding contract in Brazil. > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com > > -- Jon Smirl jonsm...@gmail.com
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > this > bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > and > wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in some > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > remain > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. > > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > the > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > directly > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to > prove > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > nothing was done. > ...and then you get into questions about how this committee will respond to queries from said law enforcement, and indeed to which legal systems the committee will or will not report incidents. Why would we want to be going down the path of trying to handle reports about "serious incidents" in the first place? That seems way out of scope for a code of conduct arbitration scheme. Even attempting to counsel people as to whether or not they should report incidents can get you in trouble in many parts of the world. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com
Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [PATCH 6/7] Code of Conduct: Change the contact email address
On Sat, 2018-10-20 at 19:28 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > +to the circumstances. The Code of Conduct Committee is obligated > > to > > +maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an > > incident. > > +Further details of specific enforcement policies may be posted > > +separately. > > Unfortunately by ignoring the other suggestions on this you've left > this > bit broken. > > The committee can't keep most stuff confidential so it's misleading > and > wrong to imply they can. Data protection law, reporting laws in some > countries and the like mean that anyone expecting an incident to > remain > confidential from the person it was reported against is living in > dreamland and are going to get a nasty shock. > > At the very least it should say '(except where required by law)'. > > There is a separate issue that serious things should always go to law > enforcement - you are setting up a policy akin to the one that got > the > catholic church and many others in trouble. > > You should also reserving the right to report serious incidents > directly > to law enforcement. Unless of course you want to be forced to sit on > multiple reports of physical abuse from different people about > someone - unable to tell them about each others report, unable to > prove > anything, and in twenty years time having to explain to the media why > nothing was done. > ...and then you get into questions about how this committee will respond to queries from said law enforcement, and indeed to which legal systems the committee will or will not report incidents. Why would we want to be going down the path of trying to handle reports about "serious incidents" in the first place? That seems way out of scope for a code of conduct arbitration scheme. Even attempting to counsel people as to whether or not they should report incidents can get you in trouble in many parts of the world. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace trond.mykleb...@hammerspace.com
