The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
to:
[email protected]
Only people invited to the kernel summit will be there in person (and
therefore able to vote), but if you cannot attend, your nomination email
will be read out before the voting begins.
We currently have Three nominees:
Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the BOF where the
election is held (on the evening of either the 5th or 6th of September.
Although, please remember if you're not going to be present that things
go wrong with both networks and mailing lists, so get your nomination in
early).
James Bottomley (TAB Chair)
On 8/22/07, James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
>
> Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> to:
>
> [email protected]
> ...
Could you post the list of who the current members are and which ones
hold the seats that are open this year?
thanks,
scott
--
scott preece
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 15:56 -0500, Scott Preece wrote:
> On 8/22/07, James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> >
> > Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> > to:
> >
> > [email protected]
> > ...
>
> Could you post the list of who the current members are and which ones
> hold the seats that are open this year?
The LF still hasn't got it's new website updated with the TAB details,
but they're here on the old site:
http://old.linux-foundation.org/about_osdl/technical_advisory_board/document_view
The people whose terms end this year are:
Andrew Morton
Wim Coekaerts
Greg Kroah-Hartman
Arjan van de Ven
Christoph Lameter
James
<removed [email protected] as its subscriber only>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
>
> Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> to:
>
> [email protected]
>
> Only people invited to the kernel summit will be there in person (and
> therefore able to vote), but if you cannot attend, your nomination email
> will be read out before the voting begins.
>
> We currently have Three nominees:
>
> Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
> Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
>
> The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the BOF where the
> election is held (on the evening of either the 5th or 6th of September.
> Although, please remember if you're not going to be present that things
> go wrong with both networks and mailing lists, so get your nomination in
> early).
I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
exist for this process ?
Not that I've anything against any of the above candidates, but this
should probably be more than just a popularity contest.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
* Dave Jones ([email protected]) wrote:
> I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> exist for this process ?
Last year each nominee made a statement as you describe before
the votes were cast (during the voting session).
thanks,
-chris
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:33:58 -0700 Chris Wright wrote:
> * Dave Jones ([email protected]) wrote:
> > I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> > Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> > of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> > exist for this process ?
>
> Last year each nominee made a statement as you describe before
> the votes were cast (during the voting session).
and if they won't be present?
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 17:22 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> <removed [email protected] as its subscriber only>
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> >
> > Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> > to:
> >
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Only people invited to the kernel summit will be there in person (and
> > therefore able to vote), but if you cannot attend, your nomination email
> > will be read out before the voting begins.
> >
> > We currently have Three nominees:
> >
> > Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> > Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
> > Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
> >
> > The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the BOF where the
> > election is held (on the evening of either the 5th or 6th of September.
> > Although, please remember if you're not going to be present that things
> > go wrong with both networks and mailing lists, so get your nomination in
> > early).
>
> I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> exist for this process ?
>
> Not that I've anything against any of the above candidates, but this
> should probably be more than just a popularity contest.
Yes ... well, there was a need to get away from the cronyism of OSDL in
the past. The problem was to come up with a mechanism that did away
with this. The elected one was about the best we could find, but if
you've an alternative suggestion, by all means let's hear it.
James
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 14:38 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:33:58 -0700 Chris Wright wrote:
>
> > * Dave Jones ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> > > Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> > > of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> > > exist for this process ?
> >
> > Last year each nominee made a statement as you describe before
> > the votes were cast (during the voting session).
>
> and if they won't be present?
The Chair reads their statement.
James
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:43:58PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> > >
> > > Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> > > to:
> > >
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > Only people invited to the kernel summit will be there in person (and
> > > therefore able to vote), but if you cannot attend, your nomination email
> > > will be read out before the voting begins.
> > >
> > > We currently have Three nominees:
> > >
> > > Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> > > Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
> > > Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the BOF where the
> > > election is held (on the evening of either the 5th or 6th of September.
> > > Although, please remember if you're not going to be present that things
> > > go wrong with both networks and mailing lists, so get your nomination in
> > > early).
> >
> > I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> > Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> > of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> > exist for this process ?
> >
> > Not that I've anything against any of the above candidates, but this
> > should probably be more than just a popularity contest.
>
> Yes ... well, there was a need to get away from the cronyism of OSDL in
> the past. The problem was to come up with a mechanism that did away
> with this. The elected one was about the best we could find, but if
> you've an alternative suggestion, by all means let's hear it.
Possibly I'm confused about the actual role that these nominees are
running for. If it's a rigid position in which they don't get to
do anything outside of a specific mandate, then any of the above
would be qualified to represent the kernel community.
However, if there's flexability for a candidate to bring something
new to the position, an online statement from each nominee _Before_
the voting begins declaring what they intend to do should they get elected.
Reading out the statement before the summit and also asking people
to vote before that happens seems a little disingenuous.
Can you explain more about what the succesful candidate would actually
do for me, and why I (and others) would want to vote one way or the other?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 17:58 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 04:43:58PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone is eligible to stand for election, simply send your nomination
> > > > to:
> > > >
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Only people invited to the kernel summit will be there in person (and
> > > > therefore able to vote), but if you cannot attend, your nomination email
> > > > will be read out before the voting begins.
> > > >
> > > > We currently have Three nominees:
> > > >
> > > > Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
> > > > Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
> > > > Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
> > > >
> > > > The deadline for receiving nominations is up until the BOF where the
> > > > election is held (on the evening of either the 5th or 6th of September.
> > > > Although, please remember if you're not going to be present that things
> > > > go wrong with both networks and mailing lists, so get your nomination in
> > > > early).
> > >
> > > I have a reservation about voting for any of the above.
> > > Normally during any process involving votes, there exists some sort
> > > of "why you should vote for me" type statement. Does such a thing
> > > exist for this process ?
> > >
> > > Not that I've anything against any of the above candidates, but this
> > > should probably be more than just a popularity contest.
> >
> > Yes ... well, there was a need to get away from the cronyism of OSDL in
> > the past. The problem was to come up with a mechanism that did away
> > with this. The elected one was about the best we could find, but if
> > you've an alternative suggestion, by all means let's hear it.
>
> Possibly I'm confused about the actual role that these nominees are
> running for. If it's a rigid position in which they don't get to
> do anything outside of a specific mandate, then any of the above
> would be qualified to represent the kernel community.
It's really just a represent the community type of role. The LF uses
the TAB to get a sense of the community for various things they and
their members are thinking. Conversely, the TAB was initially formed to
get a set of specific objectives out of the then OSDL (Doc Fellowship,
Travel Fund, NDA programme and HW lending library plus a few other
things). The TAB takes proposals from the community for things it needs
that require an organisation to sort out (a good example of this is the
currently being acted on PCI sig membership, which will give us access
to the PCI specs plus a vendor ID that the virtualisation people asked
for to help with virtual device recognition).
> However, if there's flexability for a candidate to bring something
> new to the position, an online statement from each nominee _Before_
> the voting begins declaring what they intend to do should they get elected.
> Reading out the statement before the summit and also asking people
> to vote before that happens seems a little disingenuous.
The procedure is to read statements before the election in a BOF at the
Kernel Summit, so the order is statements first then voting.
> Can you explain more about what the succesful candidate would actually
> do for me, and why I (and others) would want to vote one way or the other?
The base requirement is just someone you trust to look after the
interests of the community and correctly reflect them back to the LF. I
think someone who had concrete proposals to make the LF better or to
come up with new ways it could help the community would be on to a
winner ... but then I'm a bit naïve when it comes to trusting democracy.
James
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
determined at a kernel-only event.
--
Matthew Garrett | [email protected]
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
> The procedure is to read statements before the election in a BOF at the
> Kernel Summit, so the order is statements first then voting.
Just to clarify, are sponsor delegates and KS committee members entitled
to vote?
- James
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
>
> The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
> TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
> limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
> instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
> determined at a kernel-only event.
I was under the impression that the TAB elections were being held at
Kernel Summit purely as a stop-gap; that this wasn't to be a regular
event.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> >
> > The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
> > TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
> > limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
> > instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
> > determined at a kernel-only event.
>
> I was under the impression that the TAB elections were being held at
> Kernel Summit purely as a stop-gap; that this wasn't to be a regular
> event.
And we're still looking for a better solution. Patches welcome.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:37:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> > >
> > > The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
> > > TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
> > > limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
> > > instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
> > > determined at a kernel-only event.
> >
> > I was under the impression that the TAB elections were being held at
> > Kernel Summit purely as a stop-gap; that this wasn't to be a regular
> > event.
>
> And we're still looking for a better solution. Patches welcome.
Software in the Public Interest has a system you can steal ...
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:37:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> > > >
> > > > The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
> > > > TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
> > > > limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
> > > > instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
> > > > determined at a kernel-only event.
> > >
> > > I was under the impression that the TAB elections were being held at
> > > Kernel Summit purely as a stop-gap; that this wasn't to be a regular
> > > event.
> >
> > And we're still looking for a better solution. Patches welcome.
>
> Software in the Public Interest has a system you can steal ...
Unfortunately, it's fairly burdensome:
Any contributing member of SPI is eligible to vote.
...
Contributing memberships are open to persons and organizations who
have made significant contributions to the free software community,
as determined by the membership committee.
The membership committee and its charter will make reasonable and
fair procedures for these determinations, including for acquiring
necessary information such as lists of projects a prospective member
has participated in or testimonials, and for regularly reviewing the
status of contributing members.
While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources
for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it
hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 16:47 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > The procedure is to read statements before the election in a BOF at the
> > Kernel Summit, so the order is statements first then voting.
>
> Just to clarify, are sponsor delegates and KS committee members entitled
> to vote?
Anybody who turns up is eligible to vote.
James
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 20:19 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:37:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:22:59AM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > > The elections for five of the ten members of the Linux Foundation
> > > > > > Technical Advisory Board[TAB] are held every year, currently the
> > > > > > election will be at the 2007 Kernel Summit in a BOF session.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
> > > > > TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
> > > > > limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
> > > > > instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
> > > > > determined at a kernel-only event.
> > > >
> > > > I was under the impression that the TAB elections were being held at
> > > > Kernel Summit purely as a stop-gap; that this wasn't to be a regular
> > > > event.
> > >
> > > And we're still looking for a better solution. Patches welcome.
> >
> > Software in the Public Interest has a system you can steal ...
>
> Unfortunately, it's fairly burdensome:
>
> Any contributing member of SPI is eligible to vote.
>
> ...
>
> Contributing memberships are open to persons and organizations who
> have made significant contributions to the free software community,
> as determined by the membership committee.
>
> The membership committee and its charter will make reasonable and
> fair procedures for these determinations, including for acquiring
> necessary information such as lists of projects a prospective member
> has participated in or testimonials, and for regularly reviewing the
> status of contributing members.
>
> While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources
> for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it
> hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election.
Exactly ... we want a process that's simple and transparent. We chose
voting at the KS because almost all the attendees satisfy the "made
significant contributions to Linux" requirement without us having to do
anything or make any controversial determinations. Like Matt said,
better suggestions are welcome.
James
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 05:14:26PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> It's really just a represent the community type of role. The LF uses
> the TAB to get a sense of the community for various things they and
> their members are thinking. Conversely, the TAB was initially formed to
> get a set of specific objectives out of the then OSDL (Doc Fellowship,
> Travel Fund, NDA programme and HW lending library plus a few other
> things). The TAB takes proposals from the community for things it needs
> that require an organisation to sort out (a good example of this is the
> currently being acted on PCI sig membership, which will give us access
> to the PCI specs plus a vendor ID that the virtualisation people asked
> for to help with virtual device recognition).
James description is a fair description, but I think the one thing
that I'd want to clarify is that the members of the TAB have been very
careful about in the past two years is that we don't speak for the
community. This was especially true the first year before the TAB was
elected; but even after we held an election at last year's KS, I think
it's fair to say that while we try to advise the OSDL and now the LF
with what the community would like, the only person that we can really
represent is ourselves.
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:44:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett whote:
>The reasons for this may be obvious with more understanding of how the
>TAB came into existence, but given that the Linux Foundation isn't
>limited to kernel development (see the desktop architects stuff, for
>instance) it seems a bit odd for it to have a technical board that's
>determined at a kernel-only event.
Yes, the LF is about more than just the kernel, and Jim Zemlin does
get input from people beyond the kernel developers on the TAB. So
right now the TAB really is the "Kernel TAB".
The history behind that is that original a group of kernel developers
decided to that the OSDL wasn't doing anything useful for the issues
they wanted to deal with, and so there was a proposal to start a new
organization, called the Kernel Foundation, that would do those
things. But before we did this, a few of us recommend that we one
last attempt to work with the OSDL. As it turns out, the OSDL
management was under a directive to try to be more relevant, and so
there was an agreement to work with the people who were planning on
creating the Kernel Foundation, and this became the TAB.
Hope this helps,
- Ted
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> community. This was especially true the first year before the TAB was
> elected; but even after we held an election at last year's KS, I think
> it's fair to say that while we try to advise the OSDL and now the LF
> with what the community would like, the only person that we can really
> represent is ourselves.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems a little odd.
If I understand correctly: with the stated goal of addressing cronyism, a
mechanism is implemented where only people who are selected by a committee
or who pay are able to vote, in an election for candidates who only
represent themselves, and where the vast majority of the community is
excluded from voting.
The TAB is described on the LF site as:
"The Technical Advisory Board (TAB) provides the Linux kernel community a
direct voice into The Linux Foundation's activities..."
which certainly suggests to me a representative role on behalf of the
community.
- James
--
James Morris
<[email protected]>
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:45 -0700, James Morris wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> > community. This was especially true the first year before the TAB was
> > elected; but even after we held an election at last year's KS, I think
> > it's fair to say that while we try to advise the OSDL and now the LF
> > with what the community would like, the only person that we can really
> > represent is ourselves.
>
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems a little odd.
>
> If I understand correctly: with the stated goal of addressing cronyism, a
> mechanism is implemented where only people who are selected by a committee
> or who pay are able to vote, in an election for candidates who only
> represent themselves, and where the vast majority of the community is
> excluded from voting.
I don't think we claimed we have the perfect system. However, the
failure of anyone on this list to come up with a better one seems to
speak volumes about the difficulty of the problem. If you have a
proposal, please make it ... otherwise simply griping about the current
system isn't going to change anything.
> The TAB is described on the LF site as:
>
> "The Technical Advisory Board (TAB) provides the Linux kernel community a
> direct voice into The Linux Foundation's activities..."
>
> which certainly suggests to me a representative role on behalf of the
> community.
Then you're misconstruing the interactions. A representational role
would imply the ability to speak for the community and make promises on
its behalf. That, as Ted has already said, can't happen. Instead, the
value to the LF is that the TAB contains people experienced in community
interactions who can act as a sounding board for what may (or may not)
be well received.
James
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:49:57PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> Then you're misconstruing the interactions. A representational role
> would imply the ability to speak for the community and make promises on
> its behalf. That, as Ted has already said, can't happen. Instead, the
> value to the LF is that the TAB contains people experienced in community
> interactions who can act as a sounding board for what may (or may not)
> be well received.
One thing that may be helpful for people to understand is that serving
on the TAB is more a matter of service than anything else. There are
relatively few benefits of actually being on the TAB. Sure, you may
be more likely to get a free trip to Japan to talk about what's going
on in kernel development and to help some of the Japanese developers
being employed by the Japanese member comapnies become more effective
contributors to Linux and the LKML. But, the sort of people that
serve on the TAB generally travel too much already, and there has
already been talk about trying to get more people outside of the TAB
who are interested in serving in this role to have a chance to go to
the LF Japan Linux Symposium.
And sure, the TAB members have a bit more direct ability to make
suggestions about how various LF programs that directly benefit the
Linux community will be managed --- but the flip side of that is there
are monthly concalls and documents to review, and for the chair of the
TAB (currently James), the responsibility to sit on day-long,
face-to-face OSDL (and now Linux Foundation) board meetings. This
last is important, since many of the other members of the board are
from companies that are contributing large sums of money to the LF,
which means they are generally VP's and General Managers. Those folks
are generally not technical at all, and are so far removed from the
kernel community that they have no idea how to help the kernel
community or even if certain proposals or initiative that they might
try out would be well received.
OSDL, to its credit (and those of you who know me know that I was
often very critical of the OSDL, in part because its leadership and
management was so badly disconnected from community concerns), FINALLY
realized this was a problem in recent years, and so the TAB was the
first attempt to try to solve this problem.
An SPI-like or Debian-like approach with pure democracy might look
good on paper, but when you have companies donating hundreds of
thousands of dollars and up to the organization, having a board which
is elected by mobs of GPLv3 groupies would understandably scare them.
So we need some way of selecting the kernel developers who are willing
to invest the time to help the LF do the right thing with the
resources that they have been given. One way of doing this would be
to have someone from the LF just pick the obvious candidates; the
problem with that is that it would be rightly viewed as cronyism.
Another way would be to have a membership committee that selected
people who are considered true members of the kernel development
community, and then let them vote. But that's a rather heavyweight
solution, and if could result in all sorts of hard feelings about who
is and isn't allowed to vote.
Having the election at the KS was basically a lightweight way of doing
this, although I would have to admit that the pool of electors is a
much smaller than my liking. If the TAB was able to make promises on
behalf of the community, or enter into deals that bound the
community[1], or if it controlled a significant monetary budget, then
we would probably need a much more heavyweight and rigorous election
process.
But, as other people have said, patches are welcome. Feel free to
suggest other ways in which this could be done, keeping in mind our
design constraints.
- Ted
[1] Which at one point the FSF was hoping they could do during the
GPLv3 discussions. We very quickly set them straight that while the
TAB could talk about concerns that we as individuals had and talk
about concerns that had been expressed on the LKML, there was no way
that the TAB could negotiate any kind of quid pro quo on behalf of the
community; and thus we could not represent the kernel community in
that sense of the word. The only way in which the TAB is
"representational" is in the sense of the word "representative
sample"; the LF leadership team can't talk to every single kernel
developer, so it needs to find a what is hopefully a representative
sample of kernel developers, who are also willing to put in the time
and effort to help the LF succeed.
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:05:21 -0400ve a bit more direct ability to make
> An SPI-like or Debian-like approach with pure democracy might look
> good on paper, but when you have companies donating hundreds of
> thousands of dollars and up to the organization, having a board which
> is elected by mobs of GPLv3 groupies would understandably scare them.
> So we need some way of selecting the kernel developers who are willing
> to invest the time to help the LF do the right thing with the
> resources that they have been given.
one thing here before people bring up the "what about the users"
argument; the Linux Foundation already has a separate forum for getting
input from users as well as a separate forum for "vendors"; the TAB is
aimed at the developer (community) side in this 3-fora structure.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:35:07PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources
> > for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it
> > hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election.
>
> Exactly ... we want a process that's simple and transparent. We chose
> voting at the KS because almost all the attendees satisfy the "made
> significant contributions to Linux" requirement without us having to do
> anything or make any controversial determinations. Like Matt said,
> better suggestions are welcome.
This is a dumb suggestion, but...
How about one vote per git commit merged to linus' tree?
Might be worthwhile to allocate votes for Acked-By and so on, as well.
-andy
On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:35:07PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources
> > > for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it
> > > hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election.
> >
> > Exactly ... we want a process that's simple and transparent. We chose
> > voting at the KS because almost all the attendees satisfy the "made
> > significant contributions to Linux" requirement without us having to do
> > anything or make any controversial determinations. Like Matt said,
> > better suggestions are welcome.
>
> This is a dumb suggestion, but...
>
> How about one vote per git commit merged to linus' tree?
>
> Might be worthwhile to allocate votes for Acked-By and so on, as well.
Because git only goes back to 2.6.12.
josh
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:34:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:35:07PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources
> > > > for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it
> > > > hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election.
> > >
> > > Exactly ... we want a process that's simple and transparent. We chose
> > > voting at the KS because almost all the attendees satisfy the "made
> > > significant contributions to Linux" requirement without us having to do
> > > anything or make any controversial determinations. Like Matt said,
> > > better suggestions are welcome.
> >
> > This is a dumb suggestion, but...
> >
> > How about one vote per git commit merged to linus' tree?
> >
> > Might be worthwhile to allocate votes for Acked-By and so on, as well.
>
> Because git only goes back to 2.6.12.
If you haven't had a patch accepted since 2.6.12, it's not really
clear you're still a contributor.
Giving various kernel janitors more votes than people doing more
difficult work might be frowned on though.
But I can see giving, say, the top N contributors by some simple
metric a vote. That'd broaden the base. (But given that only about 30%
of last year's KS attendees voted even though they were a more or less
captive audience, I'd be surprised if many bothered.)
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
Ahh, I didn't realize you were suggesting making -them- do the work
instead of just stealing their model. I suppose that could work,
provided no one finds being an SPI member objectionable and they'd
provide us with their member list.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
My impression as an SPI member is that in practice most SPI members come
from the SPI projects [1], and due to Debian's size Debian developers
are the majority of SPI members.
If you elect at KS it'll favor kernel developers.
If you let all SPI members elect it'll favor Debian developers.
The Linux Foundation homepage says "The Technical Advisory Board (TAB)
provides the Linux kernel community a direct voice into The Linux
Foundation’s activities...". If this is the intention, an election at
the KS is the best solution.
cu
Adrian
[1] the most important task of SPI is handling money for the
SPI projects (and having an US tax-exempt status)
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
> How about one vote per git commit merged to linus' tree?
So you think people who send hundreds of small typo fixes are worth more
than say someone who spends 3 months writing a new driver and gets it in
with one commit ?
Curious....
And very gameable of course. James proposal at least has the advantage of
simplicity, of drawing from a rough set of relevant people (far from
perfectly) and a certain amount of random changeover according to the KS
of the year
I would make only one change personally - extend an email vote to the
people on the final invite list who can't for various reasons make it.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
Given the huge overlap between SPI membership and Debian membership,
and then taking a look at the craziness that takes place on various
Debian mailing lists, such as but not limited to debian-legal, I'm
quite convinced that this would be a baaaaaad idea.
- Ted
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:54:14AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> My impression as an SPI member is that in practice most SPI members come
> from the SPI projects [1], and due to Debian's size Debian developers
> are the majority of SPI members.
That's true -- but bear in mind that most SPI members are inactive, and
don't even vote for SPI leader. I doubt most existing members could be
bothered to vote for Linux Foundation TAB.
> If you elect at KS it'll favor kernel developers.
> If you let all SPI members elect it'll favor Debian developers.
The crucial difference is that anyone (within reason) can join SPI.
It's hard to join KS. And it doesn't just 'favour' kernel developers,
it completely limits it to kernel developers.
> The Linux Foundation homepage says "The Technical Advisory Board (TAB)
> provides the Linux kernel community a direct voice into The Linux
> Foundation???s activities...". If this is the intention, an election at
> the KS is the best solution.
I think that's a statement of the current position, and not necessarily
where the TAB wants to be.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 06:54:14AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> My impression as an SPI member is that in practice most SPI members come
>> from the SPI projects [1], and due to Debian's size Debian developers
>> are the majority of SPI members.
>
> That's true -- but bear in mind that most SPI members are inactive, and
> don't even vote for SPI leader. I doubt most existing members could be
> bothered to vote for Linux Foundation TAB.
Hi,
It was fair enough to run the vote at KS last year to get the TAB
started in the first place. However limiting the vote to a small closed
cabal, for the future, pretty much ensures that anyone will ever stand a
chance to challenge the board if they felt a change of direction was
needed. I don't have the old emails at hand, but I thought it was stated
clearly last year that the intention was to change the process for the
future?
Personally I am not sure whether SPI would be the right way to do it or
not, I am a bit wary of it being too Debian biased, but I could be
convinced otherwise.
Given that the git commit rate has already been used for a number of
appointments, and partially to select the cabal which currently have the
option to vote for the TAB. It seems pretty to set a threshold such that
anyone with more than X commits (random number out of a hat, say 5) will
get a vote - one vote per person. This avoids the issue of people who
send out 317 patches of one-liners for comments to the MAINTAINERS file
will gain an unproportional number of votes. I don't have the impression
that there is a hierachy within the KS attendees providing them a number
of votes based on their number of contributions either?
Regards,
Jes
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:13:20PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Personally I am not sure whether SPI would be the right way to do it or
> not, I am a bit wary of it being too Debian biased, but I could be
> convinced otherwise.
I don't think it's the /perfect/ organisation by any means, but let's
consider the requirements:
- Membership open to significant contributors to 'Linux' [1]
- Has a voting process
- Reasonably agnostic
Maybe an organisation like Linux International could handle this too,
but I don't know whether they have a membership process.
> Given that the git commit rate has already been used for a number of
> appointments, and partially to select the cabal which currently have the
> option to vote for the TAB. It seems pretty to set a threshold such that
> anyone with more than X commits (random number out of a hat, say 5) will
> get a vote - one vote per person. This avoids the issue of people who
> send out 317 patches of one-liners for comments to the MAINTAINERS file
> will gain an unproportional number of votes. I don't have the impression
> that there is a hierachy within the KS attendees providing them a number
> of votes based on their number of contributions either?
I ran the election last year (by counting hands) and there was no
weighting by contribution ;-) More important though is the expressed
desire for the TAB to be more than kernel people.
[1] Is Linux even the right term? The work done by the former FSG is
relevant to BSDs and Solaris. Not to mention the kernel vs distro
discussion.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> And very gameable of course. James proposal at least has the advantage of
> simplicity, of drawing from a rough set of relevant people (far from
> perfectly) and a certain amount of random changeover according to the KS
> of the year
>
> I would make only one change personally - extend an email vote to the
> people on the final invite list who can't for various reasons make it.
That's not what you said last year ...
http://thunk.org/pipermail/ksummit-2006-discuss/2006-July/000665.html
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:42:24 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > And very gameable of course. James proposal at least has the advantage of
> > simplicity, of drawing from a rough set of relevant people (far from
> > perfectly) and a certain amount of random changeover according to the KS
> > of the year
> >
> > I would make only one change personally - extend an email vote to the
> > people on the final invite list who can't for various reasons make it.
>
> That's not what you said last year ...
> http://thunk.org/pipermail/ksummit-2006-discuss/2006-July/000665.html
And if you follow the further discussion both online and off (ok that bit
might be trickier), James explained what he was trying to achieve, why he
thought it was the right way to do it, and persuaded me he was right.
Alan
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
> >
> > As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> > it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> > somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
>
> Ahh, I didn't realize you were suggesting making -them- do the work
> instead of just stealing their model. I suppose that could work,
> provided no one finds being an SPI member objectionable and they'd
> provide us with their member list.
I currently object to becoming an SPI member due to a number of personal
reasons at this point in time.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 08:57 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
> > >
> > > As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> > > it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> > > somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
> >
> > Ahh, I didn't realize you were suggesting making -them- do the work
> > instead of just stealing their model. I suppose that could work,
> > provided no one finds being an SPI member objectionable and they'd
> > provide us with their member list.
>
> I currently object to becoming an SPI member due to a number of personal
> reasons at this point in time.
There's another alternative: and that's that we could use the voting
mechanism of the LF itself. When the LF was formed, it inherited the
individual affiliate members from the FSG (These members actually elect
two of the board seats to the LF). We could simply use that pool as the
electorate for the TAB ... of course, coming from the FSG it will be
more user space centric.
To be brutally frank, I couldn't give a toss about choosing the perfect
representational system for the TAB election. In true Open Source
fashion, all I really care about is that we have a mechanism whereby
committed people can get their contributions accepted, plus we have a
check to keep the TAB straight and make it report to its constituency.
Also, being a kernel developer, I'm not unhappy with the kernel
community bias. Various members of the kernel community worked very
hard a few years ago to get OSDL to accept a list of demands and form
the TAB, so the kernel community currently has the motivation necessary
to keep it going.
So, currently, the KS election system, while not perfect, serves its
purpose adequately. The section of the TAB charter that deals with
member elections is easy to modify. However, I really don't see us
changing it until either someone comes up with a better system that's
almost as simple to operate or we actually have motivated interest in
joining the TAB from outside the Kernel community that necessitates
moving away from KS as the electorate.
James
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:10:40PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> To be brutally frank, I couldn't give a toss about choosing the perfect
> representational system for the TAB election. In true Open Source
> fashion, all I really care about is that we have a mechanism whereby
> committed people can get their contributions accepted, plus we have a
> check to keep the TAB straight and make it report to its constituency.
> Also, being a kernel developer, I'm not unhappy with the kernel
> community bias. Various members of the kernel community worked very
> hard a few years ago to get OSDL to accept a list of demands and form
> the TAB, so the kernel community currently has the motivation necessary
> to keep it going.
>
> So, currently, the KS election system, while not perfect, serves its
> purpose adequately. The section of the TAB charter that deals with
> member elections is easy to modify. However, I really don't see us
> changing it until either someone comes up with a better system that's
> almost as simple to operate or we actually have motivated interest in
> joining the TAB from outside the Kernel community that necessitates
> moving away from KS as the electorate.
As I'm not invited to KS this year, I am disenfranchised from the
process. I object to this.
--
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:57:35AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
> > >
> > > As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> > > it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in SPI. And
> > > somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
> >
> > Ahh, I didn't realize you were suggesting making -them- do the work
> > instead of just stealing their model. I suppose that could work,
> > provided no one finds being an SPI member objectionable and they'd
> > provide us with their member list.
>
> I currently object to becoming an SPI member due to a number of personal
> reasons at this point in time.
In private conversations, my previous objections were found to be
baseless and incorrect on my part, so I now withdraw my objection to
SPI. I really have no feeling about them one way or the other now,
although I would worry about their members only being the ones voting on
the TAB for no other reason than the bias toward one distro only at this
point in time.
thanks,
greg k-h
> although I would worry about their members only being the ones voting on
> the TAB for no other reason than the bias toward one distro only at this
> point in time.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit attendee test with a
completely bogus SPI membership one seems silly.
Have there been any more nominations? At the moment we are sitting
with three people standing for five positions, so the whole concept
of who should be allowed to vote in the election seems to be moot.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:01:13 -0700 Luck, Tony wrote:
> Have there been any more nominations? At the moment we are sitting
> with three people standing for five positions, so the whole concept
> of who should be allowed to vote in the election seems to be moot.
Yes, James Morris and Jon Corbet. So 5 people for 5 positions...
---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 17:01 -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Have there been any more nominations? At the moment we are sitting
> with three people standing for five positions, so the whole concept
> of who should be allowed to vote in the election seems to be moot.
Yes, the current nominations slate is
Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
Greg Kroah Hartman <[email protected]>
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
James Morris <[email protected]>
So we're still one shy of an actual contest, but there's time yet.
James
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 05:01:13PM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote:
> Have there been any more nominations? At the moment we are sitting
> with three people standing for five positions, so the whole concept
> of who should be allowed to vote in the election seems to be moot.
Unless I'm misunderstanding it this is not the last time ever this
election will be held.
And it's best to define election rules in a relaxed situation like now -
it saves you much hassle when there are already fixed rules if there
will ever be for any reason a fierce battle between candidates.
"fixed rules" doesn't has to be complicated, e.g. something like:
- elected by KS attendees
- every attendee has as many votes as open positions available
- no cumulative voting
- the candidates with most votes are elected
- if there's a draw flip a coin
- if requested by at least one attendee, vote will be secret
would work fine and wouldn't result in overhead for uncontroversial
elections.
E.g. the latest SPI Board of Directors elections were followed by a
discussion how different vote counting methods would have changed the
result - but it was only a theoretical discussion since the election
rules are fixed.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Folks,
Unless you're on the ksummit-2007-discuss list, please trim it from the
Cc list in followups. As it's a subscriber-only posting list, it's
turning into something of a chore to have to keep going to play
whack-a-mole with mailman.
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
Alan Cox wrote:
>> although I would worry about their members only being the ones voting on
>> the TAB for no other reason than the bias toward one distro only at this
>> point in time.
>
> Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
> replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit attendee test with a
> completely bogus SPI membership one seems silly.
But replacing the flawed KS list with one based on actual contributors,
from the git logs as I proposed last week, doesn't seem silly.
Right now it looks like we have a list of sane candidates up, which I
certainly would be willing to vote for. However, it would be a shame
that the credibility of the election is lost because of sticking to an
undemocratic voting procedure. A procedure which it in fact was stated
when the board was created last year, would be replaced this year.
So, yes, I support Willy's motion of having it moved away from KS. I am
less excited about SPI, but even that would be better than KS.
Jes
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
> But replacing the flawed KS list with one based on actual
> contributors, from the git logs as I proposed last week, doesn't seem
> silly.
to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
>
>> But replacing the flawed KS list with one based on actual
>> contributors, from the git logs as I proposed last week, doesn't seem
>> silly.
>
> to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
their own git commit requirement last time I checked. Not to mention the
10 seats sold to sponsors (presuming it goes like in previous years,
with each sponsor being awarded one grease slot per sponsorship).
Based on the published list of invitees (which didn't seem to include
the seats sold off) that means 25% of the people who can vote for the
TAB were not given a vote based on their contributions.
Of course this matches the voting system in some countries, but just
because a lot of places rely on broken systems, that shouldn't encourage
the TAB to do the same.
Jes
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:12:56 +0200 Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
> >
> >> But replacing the flawed KS list with one based on actual
> >> contributors, from the git logs as I proposed last week, doesn't seem
> >> silly.
I agree.
> > to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
~~~~
Good thing you put a ;) there, Arjan.
> Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
> their own git commit requirement last time I checked. Not to mention the
> 10 seats sold to sponsors (presuming it goes like in previous years,
> with each sponsor being awarded one grease slot per sponsorship).
Yes, I'm not fond of the PC automatic invites either.
(that's Program Committee, not politically correct or other PC
acronyms)
> Based on the published list of invitees (which didn't seem to include
> the seats sold off) that means 25% of the people who can vote for the
> TAB were not given a vote based on their contributions.
>
> Of course this matches the voting system in some countries, but just
> because a lot of places rely on broken systems, that shouldn't encourage
> the TAB to do the same.
---
~Randy
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Right now it looks like we have a list of sane candidates up, which I
> certainly would be willing to vote for. However, it would be a shame
> that the credibility of the election is lost because of sticking to an
> undemocratic voting procedure. A procedure which it in fact was stated
> when the board was created last year, would be replaced this year.
Democracy is an ideal that is not attainable. A representative democracy
is usually the best you can get. So you need people that have some
competence to contribute to the endeavor. And AFAICT we approximate that
reasonably. Many of the people that were not subject to the git commit
quota are experienced hands that are valuable because of their experience
with Linux and the Summit.
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not
> > like it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in
> > SPI. And somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
>
> Given the huge overlap between SPI membership and Debian membership,
> and then taking a look at the craziness that takes place on various
> Debian mailing lists, such as but not limited to debian-legal, I'm
> quite convinced that this would be a baaaaaad idea.
Hi Ted,
Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but
the best that has been discovered so far.
Regards,
Daniel
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
> their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
Note that the git commit metric is not a "requirement", but a way of
seeding the list of people to be considered. The current selection
process is that we *start* with that list, and then accept nominations
from anyone for anyone (including self-nominations) that should be
considered that weren't automatically included by the git selection
criteria.
- Ted
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 22:18 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
> > their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
>
> Note that the git commit metric is not a "requirement", but a way of
> seeding the list of people to be considered. The current selection
> process is that we *start* with that list, and then accept nominations
> from anyone for anyone (including self-nominations) that should be
> considered that weren't automatically included by the git selection
> criteria.
Just out of curiosity , have you had anyone nominate a really really
large group ? Like say, anyone that has every send an email to lkml ?
Daniel
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:18:36PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> Just out of curiosity , have you had anyone nominate a really really
> large group ? Like say, anyone that has every send an email to lkml ?
Nope; I suspect someone who did that would just be ignored by the
program committee. We might publically mock someone who did that,
just to discourage that kind of behavior, but it's wouldn't be a
particularly effective denial of service attack, precisely because the
program committee has discretion about how to handle that sort of
thing.
There have been people nominating 5-10 people in previous years, and
in general the set of people that were nominated overlapped with
suggestions made by others --- and that's the process working as it's
supposed to. But that's not a "really, really large group".
- Ted
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:59:09PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but
> the best that has been discovered so far.
Sure, but a Debian mailing list where fanatics who have no job, no
life, but huge amounts of free time to post literally hundreds of
messages a day indulging in Debian's "last post wins" style of
argumentation have far more power to influence the decision making
process than those who have to work at a real job has very little in
common with a legislative assembly.
That's why any kind of election for the TAB should happen, IMHO, in
"real space", at some conference where there is a gross filter of
people being able to afford travel expenses or be paid by some company
for their expenses (thus showing that someone felt that they were
doing enough good work that they should be given the resources to pay
for travel expenses and the conference registration fees).
If that's an elitist attitude; I plead guilty --- Linux and OSS is
*not* a democracy. Linus doesn't obey the whims of majority voting to
decide which patches to accept or reject. The Linux kernel community
is very much a meritocracy, which is why I don't believe that some
kind of pure democracy such as using the SPI voting membership is the
right thing for electing the TAB. Just remember, in the United
States, a democracy where around 50% of Americans believe that Saddam
Hussein was personally responsible for 9/11 elected George W. Bush to
the US presidency. It's statistics like that which make you want to
impose some kind of comptency test on who is allowed to vote.
The kernel summit is one such place where we can hold such a vote, and
if people thought that a BOF at some conference like Linux.conf.au or
OLS would be a better place, those might be other alternatives. I'll
note that most of this discussion is mostly moot, though, given that
at this point we have 5 candidates for 5 slots, for positions which is
really more about service than about any kind of power or benefits.
- Ted
Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
>>>As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not
>>>like it is remotely hard for kernel hackers to gain membership in
>>>SPI. And somebody else takes care of the bureaucracy for you.
>>
>>Given the huge overlap between SPI membership and Debian membership,
>>and then taking a look at the craziness that takes place on various
>>Debian mailing lists, such as but not limited to debian-legal, I'm
>>quite convinced that this would be a baaaaaad idea.
>
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but
> the best that has been discovered so far.
Given that there is already some charter that says KS attendees vote...
isn't it best to retain that? Directives from above aside, you need
specifications on how to change voting procedure before changing it, no?
If those don't exist, then something vaguely similar in my country would
require a referendum I think.
Hasn't the KS committee / TAB board vote rigging conspiracy theory been
raised yet? Given they're not running a country, it would be great fun
to see the board getting corrupted and go off the rails ;) I'd vote for
them because if Ted has anything to do with it, I *know* we'll be having
KS in Hawaii ;)
--
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
>> Right now it looks like we have a list of sane candidates up, which I
>> certainly would be willing to vote for. However, it would be a shame
>> that the credibility of the election is lost because of sticking to an
>> undemocratic voting procedure. A procedure which it in fact was stated
>> when the board was created last year, would be replaced this year.
>
> Democracy is an ideal that is not attainable. A representative democracy
> is usually the best you can get. So you need people that have some
> competence to contribute to the endeavor. And AFAICT we approximate that
> reasonably. Many of the people that were not subject to the git commit
> quota are experienced hands that are valuable because of their experience
> with Linux and the Summit.
Of course, total democracy is impractical and not attainable. However,
in this particular situation we have something that is far from perfect,
but which is also easy to improve significantly if there is willingness
to do so.
KS has been using the 'we can only fit in 50 people into our exclusive
club because we have to include all of our program committee and the
sold off seats so we can go collect money for a ridiculously huge
budget for usenix' argument for years.
I don't see why the TAB vote should lose it's credibility in order to
satisfy a demand from a few people to enjoy their feel of exclusivity,
in particular when it's so easy to fix.
Jes
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:38:04PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hasn't the KS committee / TAB board vote rigging conspiracy theory been
> raised yet?
It's too easy. All you have to do is note the significant overlap
between the KS program committee and the TAB.
Program Committee
Jens Axboe, Oracle
* James Bottomley, SteelEye
Jonathon Corbet, LWN.net
Steve Hemminger, OSDL/The Linux Foundation
Dirk Hohndel, Intel
Gerrit Huizenga, IBM
Dave Jones, Red Hat
Andi Kleen, Novell
* Greg Kroah-Hartman, Novell/SuSE Labs
* Matthew Mackall, Selenic Consulting
* Andrew Morton, Google
* Theodore Ts'o, IBM
TAB members:
* James Bottomley
Wim Coekaerts
Randy Dunlap
* Greg Kroah-Hartman
Christoph Lameter
* Matt Mackall
* Andrew Morton
* Theodore Ts'o
Arjan van de Ven
Chris Wright
There you have it. Half of the board sit on the committee who decides
who their electorate are!
On a serious note, James, I think you mis-spoke when you said that
Andrew Morton's term was up this year., My understanding is that people
are elected for two years, and he was elected last year, so my list of
people whose terms are up is:
Wim Coekaerts
Greg Kroah-Hartman
Christoph Lameter
Arjan van de Ven
According to the August minutes, Randy was elected back to the TAB then,
so there's actually only four slots up for re-election this year.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 01:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > although I would worry about their members only being the ones voting on
> > the TAB for no other reason than the bias toward one distro only at this
> > point in time.
>
> Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
> replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit attendee test with a
> completely bogus SPI membership one seems silly.
I'll note in passing that SPI and/or individual members of the SPI board
have been willing to run voting machinery for other organizations at
various times in the past, without requiring that the process involve
having the electorate become SPI contributing members. If the TAB would
like SPI to consider running a vote, we can certainly explore
alternatives.
The notion of explicitly inviting KS attendees and other kernel
contributors to join SPI as contributing members is an interesting one I
hadn't thought of. I at least would welcome the additional breadth of
perspective such new members might bring to SPI. SPI has become "much
more than Debian" in the last couple years, but I suspect we're still
light on kernel contributors as contributing members.
http://www.spi-inc.org/about-spi/membership
Bdale
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:55:16 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On a serious note, James, I think you mis-spoke when you said that
> Andrew Morton's term was up this year.
In that case I hereby quit ;) My contribution to the TAB has been practically
zero and I don't expect that to change.
Sorry this has taken so long to get out ... I just, er, forgot.
Summary of the TAB election results at the kernel Summit on Wednesday 5
September.
At the meeting, we had eight candidates:
Arjan van de Ven
Greg Kroah Hartman
Christoph Lameter
Jon Corbett
James Morris
Christoph Hellwig
David Woodhouse
Olaf Kirch
Every candidate gave a nomination statement before the voting (with the
three persons not present: James Morris, Christoph Hellwig and David
Woodhouse having their statements read to the meeting). We did single
polling per position and had two rounds for a tie on the last candidate.
Those elected to the TAB were:
Arjan van de Ven
Greg Kroah Hartman
Christoph Lameter
Jon Corbett
Olaf Kirch
James