Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 13 Mar 2020 10:59:03 -0400
From:   Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
        "tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] Linux Foundation
 Technical Advisory Board Elections -- Change to charter
Message-ID: <20200313145903.vwdpawgcve73hdmj@chatter.i7.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>,
        "tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" <tech-board-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <6d6dd6fa-880f-01fe-6177-281572aed703@labbott.name>
 <20200312003436.GF1639@pendragon.ideasonboard.com>
 <MWHPR13MB0895E133EC528ECF50A22100FDFD0@MWHPR13MB0895.namprd13.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200313031947.GC225435@mit.edu>
 <87d09gljhj.fsf@intel.com>
 <20200313093548.GA2089143@kroah.com>
 <877dzolf7n.fsf@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4lcrcqo4orbdsa5y"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <877dzolf7n.fsf@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--4lcrcqo4orbdsa5y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:30:20PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> There is no way of knowing whether you're eligible to vote until you
> apply for a kernel.org account and either get approved or rejected.
>=20
> The current "obvious" requirement levels are not obvious to me. How many
> contributions is enough? Is everyone in MAINTAINERS eligible, or do you
> have to be a high-profile maintainer/developer? What is a high-profile
> developer? How many people in the web of trust must you have met in
> person?

Anyone listed in MAINTAINERS is eligible to get an auto-approved account=20
on kernel.org, but they *must* satisfy the web of trust requirement:

- their key is signed by 2 other people who already have a kernel.org=20
  account (marginal trust), OR
- their key is signed by one of the following people (full trust):

  - H. Peter Anvin
  - Greg Kroah-Hartman
  - Ted Ts'o
  - Linus Torvalds
  - Dirk Hohndel
  - James Bottomley

Anyone who is not in MAINTAINERS but feel they should have an account on=20
kernel.org can still apply if they provide a reason behind their=20
request. Such cases are fairly rare and usually include collaboration on=20
non-kernel projects that are also hosted on kernel.org (there aren't=20
that many, but there are a few). The web of trust requirement is exactly=20
the same, but the final approval is not automatic. I forward these=20
requests to the above 6 people and it is sufficient for at least one=20
person to say "aye" for the account to be approved.

It is also important to highlight a distinction between "having an=20
account" and having a kernel.org email forwarding address. For this=20
particular case I was requested to provide a list of people with *active=20
accounts* on kernel.org, meaning that they have performed a git+ssh=20
operation within the past 12 months.

> And it actually seems like you think it's a good thing the admin team
> can make a subjective decision on the above.

The LF IT admin team does not make any decisions -- all decisions are=20
taken by the above 6 people (unless the person is in MAINTAINERS, in=20
which case their approval is implicit).

> It may seem completely transparent and fair and objective on the
> *inside*, but it does not look that way on the *outside*. Which is kind
> of the definition of transparent. Or lack of.

I hope I helped clarify the procedure. Of course, as the person actually=20
creating accounts I'm the final arbiter of all decisions. If I had any=20
malicious intents, I could totally subvert the whole process -- so in=20
the end you just have to trust me to be on the side of "lawful good."

-K

--4lcrcqo4orbdsa5y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQR2vl2yUnHhSB5njDW2xBzjVmSZbAUCXmuftQAKCRC2xBzjVmSZ
bJAtAQCpHec4XGPbIsLXVSLSnco3sea7WWrflVzmUOx3OKLChgEA67pYUzWNdmDv
yVutxmm+efbawqG95EdbH1REDjLWgwg=
=k55k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4lcrcqo4orbdsa5y--