On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:55:16 -0600 Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On a serious note, James, I think you mis-spoke when you said that
> Andrew Morton's term was up this year.
In that case I hereby quit ;) My contribution to the TAB has been practically
zero and I don't expect that
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 01:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:38:04PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hasn't the KS committee / TAB board vote rigging conspiracy theory been
> raised yet?
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,
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
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
Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
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
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:38:04PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hasn't the KS committee / TAB board vote rigging conspiracy theory been
raised yet?
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,
On Sat, 2007-08-25 at 01:03 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
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.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 05:55:16 -0600 Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a serious note, James, I think you mis-spoke when you said that
Andrew Morton's term was up this year.
In that case I hereby quit ;) My contribution to the TAB has been practically
zero and I don't expect that to
Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
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.
Given the huge overlap
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:59:09PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but
> the best that has been discovered so far.
Sure, but a Debian mailing list where fanatics who have no job, no
life, but huge amounts of free time to post
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:18:36PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 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 ?
Nope; I suspect someone who did that would just be ignored by the
program committee. We
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 22:18 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
> > their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
>
> Note that the git commit metric is not
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
> their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
Note that the git commit metric is not a "requirement", but a way of
seeding the list of people to be
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Given the huge overlap between SPI
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
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
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
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.
Given the huge overlap between SPI
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
Note that the git commit metric is not a requirement, but a way of
seeding the list of people to be
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 22:18 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 02:12:56PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Yes, as well as 12 committee members, of which 5 didn't even comply with
their own git commit requirement last time I checked.
Note that the git commit metric is not a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 07:18:36PM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
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 ?
Nope; I suspect someone who did that would just be ignored by the
program committee. We
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:59:09PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but
the best that has been discovered so far.
Sure, but a Debian mailing list where fanatics who have no job, no
life, but huge amounts of free time to post
Daniel Phillips wrote:
On Friday 24 August 2007 03:45, Theodore Tso wrote:
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.
Given the huge overlap
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:12:56 +0200 Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
> >
> >> 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.
I agree.
> > to some
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
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.
to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
Yes, as well as 12 committee
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
> 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.
to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Alan Cox wrote:
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.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit
Alan Cox wrote:
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.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
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.
to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
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.
to some degree the KS list is based on that git logs thing ;)
Yes, as well as 12 committee
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:12:56 +0200 Jes Sorensen wrote:
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:01:55 +0200
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.
I agree.
to some degree the KS
> 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.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit attendee
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:57:35AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > The other part of the puzzle is
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:10:40PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 08:57 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > > The other part of the puzzle is
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
> >
> > As I said; what's
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:42:24 -0600
Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 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
> >
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> 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
>
>
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:13:20PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> 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.
I don't think it's the /perfect/ organisation by any means, but let's
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
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard
> 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
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
it is remotely hard for
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
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
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:13:20PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
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.
I don't think it's the /perfect/ organisation by any means, but let's
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
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
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:42:24 -0600
Matthew Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 11:41:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
As I said; what's wrong with
On Fri, 2007-08-24 at 08:57 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:10:40PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
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
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:57:35AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 10:22:28PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including
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.
Given the complaint was about the question of correct selection of voters
replacing the somewhat flawed kernel summit attendee test
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
>
> As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
> it is remotely hard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:34:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
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
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
On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:34:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
it is remotely hard for
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 08:55:04PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:52:54PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community.
As I said; what's wrong with just using SPI membership? It's not like
it is remotely hard for
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 20:19 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:37:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 20:19 -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:42:09PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 07:37:48PM -0500, Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 06:26:18PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 11:44:00PM +0100,
68 matches
Mail list logo
