Matthew Wilcox wrote: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 -
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 014/196] kobject: remove incorrect comment in kobject_rename |
| Vladislav Bolkhovitin | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Stephen Rothwell | Re: Announce: Linux-next (Or Andrew's dream :-)) |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
| Radu Rendec | htb parallelism on multi-core platforms |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
