On 2/7/07, Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 21:10, James Simmons wrote:
>
> So it is between Britian or the Czech Republic. BTW how long of a train
> ride is to swizterland from CZ. My wife's family lives there.
Too long. 15 hours according to
http://reiseausk
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 21:10, James Simmons wrote:
>
> So it is between Britian or the Czech Republic. BTW how long of a train
> ride is to swizterland from CZ. My wife's family lives there.
Too long. 15 hours according to http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/query.exe/en .
You probably want to
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 07:29:09PM +, James Simmons wrote:
> >
> > Has the place for the KS been decided? If not I like to suggest
> > switzerland.
> >
> > > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:18:46PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > >
> > > > >> Ditto..
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Definitely disagree
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 07:29:09PM +, James Simmons wrote:
>
> Has the place for the KS been decided? If not I like to suggest switzerland.
>
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:18:46PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >
> > > >> Ditto..
> > > >>
> > > >> Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to s
Has the place for the KS been decided? If not I like to suggest switzerland.
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:18:46PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> > >> Ditto..
> > >>
> > >> Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
> > >> else different this time - perhaps *Czech Re
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:30, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some
> mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the
> sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel
> conference rooms right before OL
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:43 PST, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
> > Don't confused KS with a conference;
> > it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
>
> ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
>
> Something that might make sense for KS is
Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
Don't confused KS with a conference;
it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions
(perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-su
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:11 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when
> it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it
> really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how
> many proposals? t
> If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
> attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
> that there's underhand things going on.
There's only once voice I can hear moaning about the process. The same
voice I seem to remember moaning about for the
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Some of those people have a role other than developing patches. This
is not like stock in a public company where one patch == one vote. The
important part is to make sure that the attendee list covers the people
that have an desire to contribute. Sometimes there are peopl
Dave Jones wrote:
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
that there's underhand things going on.
Dave,
I'm sorry you feel that way, that is not the intention of it. I raise
the issue of the number o
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:21:35AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody
> seems to like to talk about that issue :)
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:48:45AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of
> outsiders still a useful feature?
>
> Previous panels we've done have been:
>
> * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the
>
Matt Domsch wrote:
As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten
an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot
people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet,
occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups
a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:25AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:16:21 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:06 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > >> The last couple of years there's been roughly 13 seats sold to sponsors,
> > >> wh
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 22:24 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
> >> KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
> >> seat
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k
for example (and other general no
James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary.
So SGI will undertake to step up a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:11:34AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though.
> > It seems a bit contradicting in itself.
>
> I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a
> short summary of the problem and why it s
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:27 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look
> at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation.
> However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in
> other ways -- for example,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 11:10:57AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
> > KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
> > seats to sponsors shouldn
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:53 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> As usual, "it depends" on the content. Can we provide them with
> sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content
> that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements
> list? Any of those panels (Cu
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:48:45 -0600 James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> > > CPU architects if we have a panel
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> > CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually
> > a fairly popular session, so
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:29 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Likewise IOMMUs.
> >
> > There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs
> > and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc,
> > y
> Don't:
> - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps.
Buy a graphics company, continue blocking 2D support and expect anyone to
even care about your hardware ... ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo i
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> > mini summits are
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:30 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> > mini summits are the wa
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move
> them on to a mo
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually
> a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped).
> something along the lines of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> Networking
> Wireless
> Filesystems
> Storage
> Power Management
>
> And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> mini summits are
> From: Theodore Tso
> Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:28:49 -0500
[]
> (Unless perhaps in some conspiracy theory scenario where Microsoft pays
> $$$ to some VC company to sponsor an event i
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Likewise IOMMUs.
>
> There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs
> and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc,
> you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things
> f
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:43:12AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> > people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> > there's reall
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion.
Likewise IOMMUs.
I thin
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a p
Andi Kleen wrote:
Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe.
If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong.
Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though.
It seems a bit contradicting in itself.
I was thinking more an abstract as in something tha
> Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion.
Nobody claimed the committee was perfect. Shit happens.
There were also plenty of prod
Andi Kleen wrote:
Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few
days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were
not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to
present/include on their behalf.
I think you completely miss the
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we
> keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most
> important people in the community" thing.
I don't think it's inten
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And ther
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we
> keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most
> important people in the community" thing.
I don't think it's intentionally meant to c
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 05:51 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free
> > to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart
> > the process.
>
> Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit
> cabal, which
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
> Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC.
But that was planned to be differently with more
> Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few
> days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were
> not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to
> present/include on their behalf.
I think you completely miss the point of KS
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k
for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There ju
Dave Jones wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days,
> m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so .
Agai
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:08:26PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > Dave Jones wrote:
> > >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
> >
> > Yep. IIR
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
> > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
> > >
> > > Well, others where represented, I was there lo
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
> > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
> > >
> > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m6
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these d
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it?
>
Similarly,
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really l
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really l
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these d
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really live and not in mainten
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Jes Sorensen wrote:
Theodore Tso wrote:
FYI, the anticipated rooms costs at Cambridge will be 60-70
pounds, and this is for single rooms with private baths
With this daily taxes, you can go to a good resort in Brazil (breakfast
and maybe lunch included) if you organize
Theodore Tso wrote:
FYI, the anticipated rooms costs at Cambridge will be 60-70
pounds, and this is for single rooms with private baths --- and just
two weeks ago I needed to tell this to sooth a worried corporate
budget maven that combined with cheaper flights to Amsterdam and then
flying Ryan
> Long term it may make sense for us to give ourselves plenty of
> planning slop of more like 24 months, so if one location doesn't work
> out we have time to work out another one.
That looks way too conservative. If kernel summit had 500+ attendees, I
can see why you'd need a such long lead time
Alan Cox wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:47:45PM -0600, Scott Preece wrote:
Hmm - Sounds like it needs to go to Halifax! [I was going to suggest
Reykjavik, but was surprised to see it was in the same time zone as
the UK.]
Reykjavik is a fantastic place with some truely wonderful Linux folks.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:28:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>...
> Still, if someone wants to pay a vast quantity of money to pay travel
> for all so that the KS can be held in some exotic location (especially
> if it's Waikiki beach, or Aspen Colorado during the skiing season),
> I'm sure people
On 1/26/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did give you a response. Find a way to pay for 80+ kernel summit
invitees to travel to India (preferably in business class :-), and
we'll talk. That's not realistic? Well, then perhaps having the
concept of holding Kernel Summit in India i
> And since the cost of travel keeps being raised - in the past my tickets
> to Brazil (To Curitiba which from either Zuerich or Frankfurt had exactly
> same price) were typically 10-20% less than a ticket to the US west coast
> and well below the cost of getting to Ottawa. Cost for food, a bus or
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:23:40AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:23:40 -0200
> Subject: Re: [Ksumm
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The company I work hold last year an ETSI internal meeting about IMS in
> Brasília. It were a very interesting experience. The meeting were closed
> to ETSI members and some people invited. After the meeting, there were
> two days of an open even
Em Qui, 2007-01-25 às 12:51 -0800, David Miller escreveu:
> From: Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:22:54 -0800
>
> It's too damn repetitive to go to the same location over and over.
> Why do you think LCA tries to go to a different city every year and
> even let "forei
From: Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:17:56 -0800
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:28:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:16:13AM +0530, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> > > Good thoughts ;-) I too believe in this - Where there is a Will,
> > > there is a Way! Tha
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 10:28:49PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:16:13AM +0530, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> > Good thoughts ;-) I too believe in this - Where there is a Will,
> > there is a Way! That's the reason why I have proposed India as the
> > location for KS 2007, am stil
On 1/25/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Unless perhaps in some conspiracy theory scenario where
Microsoft pays $$$ to some VC company to sponsor an event in Moskow,
and then contracts out to the KGB to fill the meeting room with an
aerosolized powder of Polonium 210 to kill off all
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:16:13AM +0530, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> Good thoughts ;-) I too believe in this - Where there is a Will,
> there is a Way! That's the reason why I have proposed India as the
> location for KS 2007, am still awaiting for the response from Theodore
> Tso.
I did give you a res
From: Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:22:54 -0800
We've held netconf in Japan, Montreal, Portland, and this year will
likely be Europe. People found a way to make it and we found
sufficient sponsorship for all attendees who needed monetary travel
assistence every time.
From: Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:59:12 -0800
> So how about Vancouver, B.C. for 08 and Praha, CZ for 09?
That's fine especially since I can drive to Vancouver :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On 1/25/07 12:51 PM, "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> For the first time in many years I'm strongly considering actually
>>> going to the kernel summit, however if it goes back to Ottawa I
>>> definitely will stop going again.
>>
>> Is that specific to Ottawa, or is this any North Ame
From: Dirk Hohndel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 06:22:54 -0800
> > For the first time in many years I'm strongly considering actually
> > going to the kernel summit, however if it goes back to Ottawa I
> > definitely will stop going again.
>
> Is that specific to Ottawa, or is this
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:18:46PM +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >> Ditto..
> >>
> >> Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
> >> else different this time - perhaps *Czech Republic*, or somewhere else more
> >> easterly and Linux active (or even Finland...)
> >
> >
On 1/23/07 9:57 AM, "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
>> else different this time - perhaps Czech Republic, or somewhere else more
>> easterly and Linux active (or even Finland...)
>
> This is my position as well.
On 1/24/07, Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Scott Preece" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[]
> Hmm - Sounds like it needs to go to Halifax! [I was going to suggest
> Reykjavik, but was surprised to see it was in the same time zone as
> the UK.]
>
> I wonder what the geographic center of t
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:47:45PM -0600, Scott Preece wrote:
> Hmm - Sounds like it needs to go to Halifax! [I was going to suggest
> Reykjavik, but was surprised to see it was in the same time zone as
> the UK.]
Reykjavik is a fantastic place with some truely wonderful Linux folks. As to
the tim
On 1/24/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's not just the cost of travel by any means - the extra travel time and
jetlag involved is huge - having everybody sleep through a conference is
distinctly less productive.
One of the advantages of the EST timezone locations is that it's at
On 1/24/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Two years ago, maddog tried to convince me that Brazil would be a
perfect place to hold a kernel summit, and that the Brazillian
government was 100% behind linux, and could provide a wonderful
location, yadda, yadda, yadda. What I told him was
On Mon, 2007-01-22 at 02:09 -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> It's time to start kicking off the 2007 Kernel Summit planning
> process. This year, the Kernel Summit will be held in Cambridge,
> England, at the DeVere University Arms Hotel, September 5-6 (with a
> welcome reception
On 1/24/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Presumably the way to do this would be to have a large conference
(such as OLS) after the kernel summit. Hopefully most kernel summit
attendees would stick around for 2-3 days afterwards for the technical
conference.
This is a good idea ;-)
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 04:41:39AM +0530, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> >You have to remember that the Kernel Summit is invite only. Holding
> >the summit at a location doesn't really mean it's open to anyone
> >there.
>
> Defnitely this could be held on invite only. Many Top forums happen in
> India in t
On 1/24/07, Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Any other reasons am missing here?
>
> Cost of flying 70 mainly US/European developers to India.
Thanks James. I thought about this factor. Thinking about what are the
factors which make a Kernel developer to show interest on a particular
On 1/23/07, James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> If Kernel community comes down to India...this would have a big impact
> on the community + industry too.
I think it's a good idea.
> Any other reasons am missing here?
Cost of flying 70 mainly US/Eu
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Sunil Naidu wrote:
> If Kernel community comes down to India...this would have a big impact
> on the community + industry too.
I think it's a good idea.
> Any other reasons am missing here?
Cost of flying 70 mainly US/European developers to India.
- James
--
James Morris
On 1/22/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ditto..
Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
else different this time - perhaps Czech Republic, or somewhere else more
easterly and Linux active (or even Finland...)
> While we're at it it would be nice to get r
In gmane.linux.kernel, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:45:02 -0500
>
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> > > process. This year, the Kernel Summit will be held in Cambridge,
>> > > England, at the DeVere Univ
From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 07:45:02 -0500
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > process. This year, the Kernel Summit will be held in Cambridge,
> > > England, at the DeVere University Arms Hotel, September 5-6 (with a
> > > welc
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 07:45:02AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
else different this time - perhaps Czech Republic, or somewhere else more
easterly and Linux active (or even Finland...)
Understand that one of
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 08:14:17AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 07:45:02AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
> > else different this time - perhaps Czech Republic, or somewhere else more
> > easterly
> hopefully serve as a seed for something like OLS and LCA in UK/Europe,
> and (b) I've told folks that the moving it away from Cambridge is a
> one-time experiment, after which point we will re-evaluate.
Perhaps that will work out for the best, it may be the right answer long
term is to alternate
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 07:45:02AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Definitely disagree with that. I'd like to see the conference somewhere
> else different this time - perhaps Czech Republic, or somewhere else more
> easterly and Linux active (or even Finland...)
>
Understand that one of the feedback
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 12:07:11PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > process. This year, the Kernel Summit will be held in Cambridge,
> > England, at the DeVere University Arms Hotel, September 5-6 (with a
> > welcome reception on the 4th). The decision to move the Kernel Summit
> > to England
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 02:09:17AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> It's time to start kicking off the 2007 Kernel Summit planning
> process. This year, the Kernel Summit will be held in Cambridge,
> England, at the DeVere University Arms Hotel, September 5-6 (with a
> welcome
96 matches
Mail list logo
