login
Search
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: Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org 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 <arjan@infradead.org> Greg Kroah Hartman <greg@kroah.com> Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> 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) -
<removed ksummit-2007-discuss@thunk.org 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: > > Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org > > 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 <arjan@infradead.org> > Greg Kroah Hartman <greg@kroah.com> > Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> > > 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 -
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, 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: > > > > > > Tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org > > > > > > 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 <arjan@infradead.org> > > > Greg Kroah Hartman <greg@kroah.com> > > > Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> > > > > > > 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 ...
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 The procedure is to read statements before the election in a BOF at the 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 -
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. 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 -
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 <jmorris@namei.org> -
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 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 -
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 ...
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. -
Just to clarify, are sponsor delegates and KS committee members entitled to vote? - James -- James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> -
Anybody who turns up is eligible to vote. James -
Last year each nominee made a statement as you describe before the votes were cast (during the voting session). thanks, -chris -
and if they won't be present? --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -
The Chair reads their statement. James -
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 | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org -
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." -
And we're still looking for a better solution. Patches welcome. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. -
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." -
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. -
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 -
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 -
> 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. -
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 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 -
Because git only goes back to 2.6.12. josh -
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. -
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." -
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. -
I currently object to becoming an SPI member due to a number of personal reasons at this point in time. thanks, greg k-h -
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 -
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." -
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 -
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 -
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 -
~~~~ Yes, I'm not fond of the PC automatic invites either. (that's Program Committee, not politically correct or other PC --- ~Randy -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 <arjan@infradead.org> Greg Kroah Hartman <greg@kroah.com> Christoph Lameter <christoph@lameter.com> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> James Morris <jmorris@namei.org> So we're still one shy of an actual contest, but there's time yet. James -
Yes, James Morris and Jon Corbet. So 5 people for 5 positions... --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code *** -
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 -
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
-
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 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, 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." -
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 -
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, 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." -
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 -
Hi Ted, Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but the best that has been discovered so far. Regards, Daniel -
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
-
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 ;) -- -
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." -
In that case I hereby quit ;) My contribution to the TAB has been practically zero and I don't expect that to change. -
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 -
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 -
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 -
