From imurdock at imurdock.com Thu Apr 20 05:24:38 2006 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee Message-ID: Hello everyone, The LSB Steering Committee has been fairly inactive lately, and I intend to revitalize it as a sort of "board of directors" for the LSB project. Toward that end, I've added several new members designed to give the major stakeholders in the standard more direct involvement and oversight over the project, and I'm in the process of adding a few more to round out the group even further. I hope to have everyone in place by the LSB face to face meeting June 1-2. The new members are: Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) Paul Gampe (Red Hat) Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) In other words, the major distros are now represented quite well. Welcome! I also intend to add two to three representatives from ISVs (one from a large enterprise ISV, one from a large desktop ISV, and one from a small ISV). I have people in mind for all of these seats, and I'm also open to suggestions/recommendations/introductions from anyone here. Finally, I'd like to add 2-3 representatives from key upstream projects, the key ones being GCC, glibc, and the Linux desktop community. I have someone in mind for the latter slot, but I could use help finding someone to represent GCC and glibc. Those projects are arguably the key to maintaining long-term ABI compatibility, and they've also been fairly critical of the LSB in the past, so I'd love to get them plugged in directly to help us fix the problems they've historically had with the LSB. So, as it stands today, the SC is comprised of the following individuals (and their affiliations): Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) Rajesh Banginwar (Intel) Paul Gampe (Red Hat) Marvin Heffler (IBM) Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) Ian Murdock (FSG/LSB) Nick Stoughton (all around standards stud) Matt Taggart (HP) Mats Wichmann (Intel) Everyone above (with the possible exception of Mats) will be at the face to face June 1, so we'll have a chance to meet in person then. Add in the up to six additional people I'm hoping to round out the membership of the group a bit more, and that's pretty hefty as far as boards go. Still, we're trying to represent a broad and diverse ecosystem, so I don't see much way around that. In the interest of making this group more active, I'd like to set up a monthly conference call. Please send me a set of days of the month and times that would work for you. Thanks! -ian -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Thu Apr 20 07:56:57 2006 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee Message-ID: >Finally, I'd like to add 2-3 representatives from key upstream >projects, the key ones being GCC, glibc, and the Linux desktop >community. I have someone in mind for the latter slot, but I >could use help finding someone to represent GCC and glibc. Those >projects are arguably the key to maintaining long-term ABI >compatibility, and they've also been fairly critical of the LSB >in the past, so I'd love to get them plugged in directly to >help us fix the problems they've historically had with the LSB. I'd suggest we check with Mark Mitchell on the gcc side. Thorsten at least used to be realtively active in glibc. Perhaps he can serve some of that role for us? If we're listing crucial upstream projects, there are two more: the semi-independent libstdc++ project (it's part of gcc but really has a lot of autonomy) has a lot of potential impacts on ABI stability as well (and they've become very careful about ABI impacts in the last year, which is great). And the binutils project ends up being the way new elf information makes it into the final binary. Both of these end up having to do major things in lockstep with gcc changes, so if we don't find a gcc person it's possible people from those projects could at least advise us of ABI impacts. From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Thu Apr 20 07:57:52 2006 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee Message-ID: >Hello everyone, > >The LSB Steering Committee has been fairly inactive lately, and I >intend to revitalize it as a sort of "board of directors" for the >LSB project. Toward that end, I've added several new members designed >to give the major stakeholders in the standard more direct involvement >and oversight over the project, and I'm in the process of adding a >few more to round out the group even further. I hope >to have everyone in place by the LSB face to face meeting June 1-2. > >The new members are: > >Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) >Paul Gampe (Red Hat) >Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) > >In other words, the major distros are now represented quite >well. Welcome! New members should become familiar with the LSB Workgroup Charter: http://www.linuxbase.org/policy/charter.html Historically, this document postdates the creation of the LSB; once the FSG was founded it eventually got around to requiring each project to have a charter which was filed with, and approved by, the FSG Board. This document is the one that was developed to meet that requirement for LSB. A fair bit of this charter appears to longer be current so I expect some revision will be in order. -- mats From kukuk at suse.de Thu Apr 20 08:27:39 2006 From: kukuk at suse.de (Thorsten Kukuk) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060420152739.GA19457@suse.de> On Thu, Apr 20, Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > Thorsten at least used to be realtively active in glibc. > Perhaps he can serve some of that role for us? I don't do much on glibc side anymore and I was never involved in decissions, so I would be the wrong person here. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Maxfeldstr. 5 D-90409 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = 8C6B FD92 EE0F 42ED F91A 6A73 6D1A 7F05 2E59 24BB From rajesh.banginwar at intel.com Wed Apr 26 10:15:20 2006 From: rajesh.banginwar at intel.com (Banginwar, Rajesh) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee Message-ID: I have been thinking about this and here are some of those thoughts: I think the OSV part, I agree with you and am really happy to see these OSVs now actively working with LSB. As far as ISVs go: I would recommend we take one enterprise ISV like CA and one desktop ISV to a min. I would have really liked Adobe filling in that role but looks like they are not interested in Linux anymore... Finding such ISV is going to be interesting. For upstreams: I would divide this as follows: a. gcc and/or glibc b. libstdc++ as this has been a major cause of issues for LSB lately c. Gnome's official representative. d. KDE's official representative for c and d above, I would really like an community approved representative (or Gnome advisory board approved) join LSB SC (instead of just any KDE/Gnome developer). I wouldn't worry too much about other upstreams at this time as KDE and Gnome covers what we are interested in from desktop point of view. Hope I am not tool late in responding here... Thanks, -Rajesh > -----Original Message----- > From: lsb-sc-bounces@lists.freestandards.org [mailto:lsb-sc- > bounces@lists.freestandards.org] On Behalf Of Ian Murdock > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:25 AM > To: lsb-sc@lists.freestandards.org > Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee > > Hello everyone, > > The LSB Steering Committee has been fairly inactive lately, and I > intend to revitalize it as a sort of "board of directors" for the > LSB project. Toward that end, I've added several new members designed > to give the major stakeholders in the standard more direct involvement > and oversight over the project, and I'm in the process of adding a > few more to round out the group even further. I hope > to have everyone in place by the LSB face to face meeting June 1-2. > > The new members are: > > Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) > Paul Gampe (Red Hat) > Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) > > In other words, the major distros are now represented quite well. Welcome! > > I also intend to add two to three representatives from ISVs (one from a > large enterprise ISV, one from a large desktop ISV, and one from a > small ISV). I have people in mind for all of these seats, and I'm also > open to suggestions/recommendations/introductions from anyone here. > > Finally, I'd like to add 2-3 representatives from key upstream > projects, the key ones being GCC, glibc, and the Linux desktop > community. I have someone in mind for the latter slot, but I > could use help finding someone to represent GCC and glibc. Those > projects are arguably the key to maintaining long-term ABI > compatibility, and they've also been fairly critical of the LSB > in the past, so I'd love to get them plugged in directly to > help us fix the problems they've historically had with the LSB. > > So, as it stands today, the SC is comprised of the following > individuals (and their affiliations): > > Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) > Rajesh Banginwar (Intel) > Paul Gampe (Red Hat) > Marvin Heffler (IBM) > Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) > Ian Murdock (FSG/LSB) > Nick Stoughton (all around standards stud) > Matt Taggart (HP) > Mats Wichmann (Intel) > > Everyone above (with the possible exception of Mats) will be at the > face to face June 1, so we'll have a chance to meet in person then. > > Add in the up to six additional people I'm hoping to round out the > membership of the group a bit more, and that's pretty hefty as far > as boards go. Still, we're trying to represent a broad and diverse > ecosystem, so I don't see much way around that. > > In the interest of making this group more active, I'd like to set up > a monthly conference call. Please send me a set of days of the month > and times that would work for you. > > Thanks! > > -ian > -- > Ian Murdock > 317-863-2590 > http://ianmurdock.com/ > > "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige > _______________________________________________ > lsb-sc mailing list > lsb-sc@lists.freestandards.org > http://lists.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc From imurdock at imurdock.com Wed Apr 26 14:32:41 2006 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/26/06, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote: > As far as ISVs go: I would recommend we take one enterprise ISV like CA > and one desktop ISV to a min. I would have really liked Adobe filling in > that role but looks like they are not interested in Linux anymore... > Finding such ISV is going to be interesting. RealNetworks is increasingly looking like a good candidate for the desktop ISV slot. They're now saying they'll be pursuing LSB certification for RealPlayer in the coming months. I also except someone from Real to be at the f2f as well. I feel pretty strongly about having a representative from a smaller ISV as well--the issues they face are substantially different from the larger ISVs. For example, unlike the big guys, they don't have the clout to mandate that their customers use a specific distro--often, the customers mandate which distros the ISV has to support ("we've standardized on Fedora Core 4, so you need to support that"). The LSB provides pretty compelling benefit for the small ISVs, particularly given that they're the least likely to be able to afford to support more than a few targets, and given that 90% of the way there is often sufficient (and probably better than they'd be able to do on their own in any case). Oracle and the other masthead ISVs will never be able to live with less than validating directly to an implementation, which is why getting the big ISVs to certify to the LSB is a non-goal from my point of view. For the big ISVs, the value proposition of the LSB is providing some ability to support the "long tail" of Linux distros, with certification efforts targeted to the enterprise distros (RHEL, SLES, etc.). Here "LSB compliant" should be the main goal. > For upstreams: I would divide this as follows: > a. gcc and/or glibc > b. libstdc++ as this has been a major cause of issues for LSB > lately > c. Gnome's official representative. > d. KDE's official representative > > for c and d above, I would really like an community approved > representative (or Gnome advisory board approved) join LSB SC (instead > of just any KDE/Gnome developer). I wouldn't worry too much about other > upstreams at this time as KDE and Gnome covers what we are interested in > from desktop point of view. Agreed on a and b. I'm very interested in suggestions here, as I don't know these guys particularly well. Rather than having individual GNOME and KDE representatives, I'd rather have a single "desktop" representative, presumably someone from freedesktop.org, which represents the existing GNOME/KDE collaboration efforts. We shouldn't reinvent the wheel here, and I want to make sure the Steering Committee doesn't get so large as to be unwieldy. -ian -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From rajesh.banginwar at intel.com Wed Apr 26 15:16:32 2006 From: rajesh.banginwar at intel.com (Banginwar, Rajesh) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: imurdock@gmail.com [mailto:imurdock@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ian > Murdock > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:33 PM > To: Banginwar, Rajesh > Cc: lsb-sc@lists.freestandards.org > Subject: Re: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee > > On 4/26/06, Banginwar, Rajesh wrote: > > As far as ISVs go: I would recommend we take one enterprise ISV like CA > > and one desktop ISV to a min. I would have really liked Adobe filling in > > that role but looks like they are not interested in Linux anymore... > > Finding such ISV is going to be interesting. > > RealNetworks is increasingly looking like a good candidate for > the desktop ISV slot. They're now saying they'll be pursuing LSB > certification for RealPlayer in the coming > months. I also except someone from Real to be at the f2f as well. > > I feel pretty strongly about having a representative from a smaller ISV > as well--the issues they face are substantially different from the > larger ISVs. For example, unlike the big guys, they don't have the > clout to mandate that their customers use a specific distro--often, > the customers mandate which distros the ISV has to support > ("we've standardized on Fedora Core 4, so you need to support that"). Agreed. My suggestion was at least 2, but if we can third one, that is fine too. > > For upstreams: I would divide this as follows: > > a. gcc and/or glibc > > b. libstdc++ as this has been a major cause of issues for LSB > > lately > > c. Gnome's official representative. > > d. KDE's official representative > > > > for c and d above, I would really like an community approved > > representative (or Gnome advisory board approved) join LSB SC (instead > > of just any KDE/Gnome developer). I wouldn't worry too much about other > > upstreams at this time as KDE and Gnome covers what we are interested in > > from desktop point of view. > > Agreed on a and b. I'm very interested in suggestions here, as I > don't know these guys particularly well. Rather than having individual > GNOME and KDE representatives, I'd rather have a single "desktop" > representative, presumably someone from freedesktop.org, > which represents the existing GNOME/KDE collaboration efforts. > We shouldn't reinvent the wheel here, and I want to make sure > the Steering Committee doesn't get so large as to be unwieldy. > I kind of thought the freedesktop.org relation is more short term than the potential longer term relationship with KDE and Gnome. FDO does provide an interesting value for cross desktop related things. But for longer term I thought having representation from two major desktops is better as we expand LSB desktop's scope further. FDO representative may not have that perspective. As an example, FDO has a MIME specification that is adopted by Gnome but not KDE (yet); for such things in future, having both KDE and Gnome represented on LSB SC will be beneficial so LSB standardization can truly work through collaboration of KDE and Gnome.(just like having major distros represented). (unlike FDO which is mostly a collaboration zone and we may not get much of a political mileage with that). I should be able to help you in getting these KDE/Gnome representatives identified if needed. I think value of this is good enough to have one additional person on SC (having two instead of one FDO rep).