Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762069AbXHXMVp (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:21:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757396AbXHXMVi (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:21:38 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:40503 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755845AbXHXMVh (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:21:37 -0400 Message-ID: <46CECB60.6010901@sgi.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:13:20 +0200 From: Jes Sorensen User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (X11/20070719) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Adrian Bunk , Matthew Garrett , Tech Board Discuss , linux-kernel , Andy Isaacson , Josh Boyer , ksummit-2007-discuss@thunk.org Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections References: <20070823002618.GO9163@parisc-linux.org> <20070823003748.GR30556@waste.org> <20070823004209.GP9163@parisc-linux.org> <20070823011953.GS30556@waste.org> <1187832907.3410.141.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070824012730.GA1243@hexapodia.org> <625fc13d0708231934q5b369b4fh1a5c83def0e56a0d@mail.gmail.com> <20070824025254.GH21720@waste.org> <20070824025504.GT9163@parisc-linux.org> <20070824045413.GX30705@stusta.de> <20070824115601.GU9163@parisc-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20070824115601.GU9163@parisc-linux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1958 Lines: 41 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/