Re: [Tech-board-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections

[Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>]

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
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,
but I don't know whether they have a membership process.

> 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?

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."