| > They're going to be paying someone else […] And that's perfectly fine, it's open source software. Either way someone gets paid to look at the patches, which is my point. If you want to do it in a cost-effective manner, you'll find other people with the same requirements, since the work result is "shareable". > […] instead of the organization that deliberately hinders these efforts. There is no such organization, and it feels like you have very little understanding of the organizational (and funding) structures behind the Linux kernel. I really can't extend my comments into a full-blown explanation of this, sorry. (No, the Linux Foundation does not perform the role you're implying: they don't currently and likely never will sell a "clean feed".) > Fewer organisations willing to cooperate with them[…] I have no data on this but it is entirely reasonable (and I believe it likely) that the current behavior was requested (or encouraged) of involved organisations and people by cooperating organisations and people. |
> There is no such organization
There is such an organization, the Linux Foundation is the CNA being the hindrance to these efforts. And yes, they won't perform the role, someone else will and they will be paid for it.
For some that's fine, I find it a significant amount of wasted effort, confusion and potential issues.