From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: Linux Foundation Technical Advisory Board Elections Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:59:09 -0700 References: <20070822224400.GA17255@srcf.ucam.org> <20070824025504.GT9163@parisc-linux.org> <20070824104538.GA31344@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20070824104538.GA31344@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708281559.11181.phillips@phunq.net> List-Id: public TAB mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Theodore Tso Cc: Matthew Garrett , Matthew Wilcox , Tech Board Discuss , linux-kernel , James Bottomley , Andy Isaacson , Josh Boyer , ksummit-2007-discuss@thunk.org 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 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. Hi Ted, Ever watched a legislative assembly at work? A bad idea perhaps, but the best that has been discovered so far. Regards, Daniel