On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:34:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
quoted text
> On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <adi@hexapodia.org> 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.
-
unsubscribe notice
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/