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/
