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 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.
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."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
