From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Wed Jul 14 07:28:48 2004 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] LSB 2.0 approvals Message-ID: I've examined our charter, and by that document, it's clear the LSB Steering Committee has the only required vote on LSB 2.0. That vote is to exit the development phase and promote 2.0 as a candidate to the FSG board. My reading of the steering committee membership is: Chair - Mats Test - Andrew Build - Chris Appbat - Marvin Spec - Stuart Futures - Matt SI - (still listed as Mats, who can only vote once, so effectively vacant) Distro (virtual) - vacant Apps (virtual) - vacant That's six votes. We've never managed to fill the two virtual subproject seats the charter described. There are no apps qualified to select from (we say certified) and given the current oppositional situation I don't think picking a distro member right now would be the best policy, I'd like them to get together and agree on a representative (nobody took the bait when I tried to set up such a selection previously) eventually. Doug and George also are mailing list members but would not have an automatic vote by the charter. There's a provision for the chair to add other members to the SC if the chair feels strongly they should be added. I have not exercised my discretion on this point; George, I need to ask you if you added any members to the steering committee in this way, as such action would still be in force, not having been rescinded. Once we have the SC membership sorted, I would like to arrange either a meeting or a vote (which could be by email or other means) on LSB 2.0. I'd like to have a sense of the workgroup on the 3.3/3.4 issue, and direction from the specauth that the spec is indeed ready. Given our geographical constraints (OZ-UK-US (all four timezones) membership), it may be hard to pick a really agreeable time. Perhaps we can keep any needed phone call to a minimum by conducting some discussion here first? How do you all feel about LSB 2.0 at this stage, including the contentious question? Mats From heffler at us.ibm.com Wed Jul 14 07:37:10 2004 From: heffler at us.ibm.com (Marvin Heffler) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] LSB 2.0 approvals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I would suggest adding as many of our existing certified distro companies as possible for this particular vote since it will most affect them and will give the SC a good feel for the compiler direction the distros will pursue. Doug has already been in contact with about six or seven who are interested in LSB 2.0 certification. Regards, Marvin Heffler Linux Standard Base IBM Linux Technology Center 11400 Burnet Road, Zip 905-7A017 Austin, TX 78758 (512) 838-0953 T/L 678-0953 lsb-sc-bounces@base3.freestandards.org wrote on 07/14/2004 09:28:48 AM: > > I've examined our charter, and by that document, > it's clear the LSB Steering Committee has the only > required vote on LSB 2.0. That vote is to exit > the development phase and promote 2.0 as a candidate > to the FSG board. > > My reading of the steering committee membership is: > > Chair - Mats > Test - Andrew > Build - Chris > Appbat - Marvin > Spec - Stuart > Futures - Matt > SI - (still listed as Mats, who can only vote once, > so effectively vacant) > Distro (virtual) - vacant > Apps (virtual) - vacant > > That's six votes. > > We've never managed to fill the two virtual subproject > seats the charter described. There are no apps > qualified to select from (we say certified) and given > the current oppositional situation I don't think > picking a distro member right now would be the best > policy, I'd like them to get together and agree on > a representative (nobody took the bait when I tried > to set up such a selection previously) eventually. > > Doug and George also are mailing list members > but would not have an automatic vote by the charter. > There's a provision for the chair to add other > members to the SC if the chair feels strongly they > should be added. I have not exercised my discretion > on this point; George, I need to ask you if you added > any members to the steering committee in this way, as > such action would still be in force, not having > been rescinded. > > Once we have the SC membership sorted, I would like > to arrange either a meeting or a vote (which could > be by email or other means) on LSB 2.0. I'd like to > have a sense of the workgroup on the 3.3/3.4 issue, > and direction from the specauth that the spec is > indeed ready. > > Given our geographical constraints (OZ-UK-US (all four > timezones) membership), it may be hard to pick a really > agreeable time. Perhaps we can keep any needed phone > call to a minimum by conducting some discussion here > first? > > How do you all feel about LSB 2.0 at this stage, > including the contentious question? > > Mats > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsb-sc mailing list > Lsb-sc@mail.freestandards.org > http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/attachments/20040714/67b44fa6/attachment.htm From mats at netsweng.com Wed Jul 28 17:34:06 2004 From: mats at netsweng.com (Mats D Wichmann) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Friday call on 2.0 spec approval Message-ID: (this is a resend from a different address, turns out I was have email trouble and didn't know it) We need to have a call to see if we're ready to approved the 2.0 spec. Friday is the date the 7-day release candidate status expires. I'm free all day, does 11am US-Eastern work? Mats From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Wed Jul 28 12:38:48 2004 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Friday call on 2.0 spec approval Message-ID: We need to have a call to see if we're ready to approve the 2.0 spec. Friday is the date the 7-day release candidate status expires. I'm open all day, does 11am US-Eastern work? Mats From cyeoh at samba.org Wed Jul 28 20:30:06 2004 From: cyeoh at samba.org (Christopher Yeoh) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Friday call on 2.0 spec approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16648.28478.948940.961598@gargle.gargle.HOWL> At 2004/7/28 20:34-0400 Mats D Wichmann writes: > > (this is a resend from a different address, turns out I > was have email trouble and didn't know it) > > We need to have a call to see if we're ready to approved > the 2.0 spec. Friday is the date the 7-day release > candidate status expires. I'm free all day, does 11am > US-Eastern work? That time is fine with me. Chris -- cyeoh@au.ibm.com IBM OzLabs Linux Development Group Canberra, Australia From heffler at us.ibm.com Thu Jul 29 07:44:37 2004 From: heffler at us.ibm.com (Marvin Heffler) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Friday call on 2.0 spec approval In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Friday at 11:00 EDT works for me. We can use the regular conf call number. Regards, Marvin Heffler Linux Standard Base IBM Linux Technology Center 11400 Burnet Road, Zip 905-7A017 Austin, TX 78758 (512) 838-0953 T/L 678-0953 lsb-sc-bounces@base3.freestandards.org wrote on 07/28/2004 07:34:06 PM: > > > (this is a resend from a different address, turns out I > was have email trouble and didn't know it) > > We need to have a call to see if we're ready to approved > the 2.0 spec. Friday is the date the 7-day release > candidate status expires. I'm free all day, does 11am > US-Eastern work? > > Mats > > > > _______________________________________________ > Lsb-sc mailing list > Lsb-sc@mail.freestandards.org > http://mail.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/attachments/20040729/f1d51ec8/attachment.htm From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Fri Jul 30 07:03:44 2004 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Reminder: confcall today 11 US-Eastern Message-ID: On the regular number. Either vote to approve, or decide how we're going to proceed. Mats From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Fri Jul 30 08:47:44 2004 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee notes, July 30 2004 Message-ID: The LSB steering committee met by conference call Friday July 30 2004 to consider whether the LSB 2.0 release candidate is ready to promote to LSB-approved status and send on to the FSG board for approval as an FSG specification. Four of the six voting members were present, with no controlling body having a majority of votes, thus a quorum was achieved. However, the SC took no formal action at this meeting. Instead, the SC agreed to leave the question open longer while the current mailing list discussion evolves. In addition, the LSB workgroup is directed to develop an FAQ on the various technical points regarding the selection of a C++ ABI for the LSB. This will hopefully clear up any remaining misunderstandings and make a final decision easier to achieve. The LSB SC will reconvene to reconsider the question at 5:00pm Wednesday August 4, face-to-face at Linux World. From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Fri Jul 30 09:06:19 2004 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] 2.0 relnote wiki page is up Message-ID: As promised in the meeting I created the page. Haven't put anything on it, as I have to run for a bit. Since most of the rest of you are off this afternoon for various reasons, could you each try one quick pass at dropping stuff in or updating what the previous person added? Direct link is here: http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=Guiki&MODE=SHOW&PAGE=relnote_2 0 Thanks, Mats