Some of the linked threads in the OP seem to indicate this was due to a major disagreement regarding AI usage[0][1]. I'm not really familiar with the other issues but this to me certainly seems to be a rather outdated view of AI. Hopefully this can all be worked out between everyone.
From one thread[0]:
> I'm clearly against using AI for any of development or review work as it can't be fully trusted and will monopolize precious reviewers time reviewing AI code instead of reviewing legitimate contributions from individual and companies.
This attitude seems especially weird since a lot of u-boot drivers are derived from their Linux counterparts and Linux developers are making rather heavy use of AI for review[2] and development. Then again there are still a lot of kernel developers that seem to be extremely resistant to using AI for coding/review work. If anything u-boot should probably be moving closer to following Linux kernel review workflows due to the significant amount of shared code and subsystem maintainers.
I've used AI for writing both u-boot and kernel patches myself with good results and it's only going to get better over time so I think most will come around in the near future as it's clear AI tools can massively improve productivity and reduce bugs.
Funny enough I actually have at least one fairly large yet to be merged u-boot patch series where Simon Glass and some of the maintainers signing the OP were reviewing my changes in the last few weeks.[3]
I'm... really uncertain on their attitude towards naming and shaming him. It's quite easy to find information relating to him personally online due to what they have posted, and yet the allegations made against him seem nebulous at best?
am I missing something or is the PLC is a bit delusional to think they have right to the ownership of the u-boot.org domain?
He "owns" it, and clearly does not want to hand it over. I paraphrase but he's not "holding the domain hostage" if he pays for it. Sounds like they are forcing him to hand it over lol.
I don't think it's clear either....I feel like it tries to imply that it was purchased with community money? If that's the case, it's understandable but really shouldn't have been registered to a person, but the charity. Things happen in small orgs though. I can understand feeling entitled to the domain, in this case.
If he purchased it and was funding it out of pocket, I agree PLC has no right to try to force him to hand it over
Some of the linked threads in the OP seem to indicate this was due to a major disagreement regarding AI usage[0][1]. I'm not really familiar with the other issues but this to me certainly seems to be a rather outdated view of AI. Hopefully this can all be worked out between everyone.
From one thread[0]:
> I'm clearly against using AI for any of development or review work as it can't be fully trusted and will monopolize precious reviewers time reviewing AI code instead of reviewing legitimate contributions from individual and companies.
This attitude seems especially weird since a lot of u-boot drivers are derived from their Linux counterparts and Linux developers are making rather heavy use of AI for review[2] and development. Then again there are still a lot of kernel developers that seem to be extremely resistant to using AI for coding/review work. If anything u-boot should probably be moving closer to following Linux kernel review workflows due to the significant amount of shared code and subsystem maintainers.
I've used AI for writing both u-boot and kernel patches myself with good results and it's only going to get better over time so I think most will come around in the near future as it's clear AI tools can massively improve productivity and reduce bugs.
Funny enough I actually have at least one fairly large yet to be merged u-boot patch series where Simon Glass and some of the maintainers signing the OP were reviewing my changes in the last few weeks.[3]
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/6c21c8d8-74c0-43bc-9249-6cc1d...
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/6d0f3078-2ba8-474c-9a1f-481ee...
[2] https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261016-submit-ce-series-v2-v9-...
Is the PLC a group of technical contributors or like a CoC committee?
Anyone have a QRD of this guy's behavior and relation to that community? I've never heard of u-boot, and this is a little vague in some places.
I'm... really uncertain on their attitude towards naming and shaming him. It's quite easy to find information relating to him personally online due to what they have posted, and yet the allegations made against him seem nebulous at best?
[flagged]
ugh, I really wish this was hyperbole but certain people at NixOS (many whom don't even use the OS) keep trying it.
"Longtime NixOS fan excited to use it for the first time!"
am I missing something or is the PLC is a bit delusional to think they have right to the ownership of the u-boot.org domain?
He "owns" it, and clearly does not want to hand it over. I paraphrase but he's not "holding the domain hostage" if he pays for it. Sounds like they are forcing him to hand it over lol.
I don't think it's clear either....I feel like it tries to imply that it was purchased with community money? If that's the case, it's understandable but really shouldn't have been registered to a person, but the charity. Things happen in small orgs though. I can understand feeling entitled to the domain, in this case.
If he purchased it and was funding it out of pocket, I agree PLC has no right to try to force him to hand it over