From nick at usenix.org Tue May 2 10:02:34 2006 From: nick at usenix.org (Nick Stoughton) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1146589354.21617.114.camel@hound.msbit.com> Hi Ian! Sorry not to reply on this sooner. > 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) You should really list my affiliation as USENIX for this purpose. But people sit on the SC because of their role in the project, not because of their affiliation. You also left out a couple. So this list SHOULD read: Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) (LSB Conforming Systems) Rajesh Banginwar (Intel) (Desktop Lead) Paul Gampe (Red Hat) (Chair's appointment) Marvin Heffler (IBM) (Sample Implementation) Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) (Chair's appointment) Ian Murdock (FSG/LSB) (Chair) Nick Stoughton (USENIX) (ISO/Chair's appointment) Matt Taggart (HP) (Futures) Mats Wichmann (Intel) (Written Spec) Andrew Josey (The Open Group) (Test Suite) Stuart Anderson (Chair's appointment) I notice that the LSB charter is no longer available at its well-known location (www.linuxbase.org/policy/charter.html). [Please can we have it restored?] However, I checked a personal copy of the charter, and while the addition of the three members you have already added appears to be completely fine according to our agreed rules, the addition of others may be limited to "A representative of developers of current or intended LSB conforming applications." ... unless, of course, we vote to change the charter! I agree that getting ISV and OSV representatives into the WG is vital. However, it is in the WG we need them, not necessarily in the SC. The SC is part of the approval process. It is a gate in getting new work started, and a gate in getting completed work out of the other end. The SC has absolutely no say in how the spec gets written (though the written spec is a sub-project and is represented). The SC can set direction (hence its name), but it cannot control content. "LSB subprojects operate with a reasonable degree of independence, and make their own choices about details of the subprojects." It is vitally important to have open procedures, that are closely followed, to avoid any accusations of proprietary-ness, especially when it comes to an executive body such as the SC. While it is relatively easy to add people, it is harder to remove them, requiring a majority vote of the entire SC to do so. -- Nick Stoughton The USENIX Association From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Tue May 2 10:10:47 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: >While it is relatively easy to add people, it is harder to remove them, >requiring a majority vote of the entire SC to do so. Excepting that there are two ways out here: "Steering committee memers may serve indefinitely as long as they are actively conducting business in the best interest of the LSB". I think one could argue that people who are not working on LSB don't really meet this criteria. And of course, members may choose to drop off (if asked). From imurdock at imurdock.com Tue May 2 10:55:19 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: <1146589354.21617.114.camel@hound.msbit.com> References: <1146589354.21617.114.camel@hound.msbit.com> Message-ID: I'm repositioning the steering committee as more of an advisory board for the LSB rather than just a procedural thing, and with this new role, it's absolutely appropriate to have direct representation from the ISVs etc. here. (Of course, we hope representation here leads to greater participation in the workgroup too, which thus far has the case for Ubuntu and always has been the case for many of the others here.) I actually meant to drop Stuart and Andrew from the list, as Stuart hasn't been involved for some time, and Andrew has only been marginally involved, and I expect that involvement to dimish now that the Open Group is no longer running the certification program. You're absolutely right that we need to have open procedures, etc. The charter could use an update. For example, who are the "subproject team leaders" now that the project has been reorganized around core and desktop and away from specification/testsuites/etc.? Let's definitely talk about that in the coming months, but I think we have more urgent matters to attend to in the short term. The old LSB site is still available at http://old.linuxbase.org, so the charter can be found at http://old.linuxbase.org/policy/charter.html. -ian On 5/2/06, Nick Stoughton wrote: > Hi Ian! > > Sorry not to reply on this sooner. > > > 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) > > You should really list my affiliation as USENIX for this purpose. But > people sit on the SC because of their role in the project, not because > of their affiliation. You also left out a couple. So this list SHOULD > read: > > Jeff Bailey (Ubuntu) (LSB Conforming Systems) > Rajesh Banginwar (Intel) (Desktop Lead) > Paul Gampe (Red Hat) (Chair's appointment) > Marvin Heffler (IBM) (Sample Implementation) > Thorsten Kukuk (Novell/SUSE) (Chair's appointment) > Ian Murdock (FSG/LSB) (Chair) > Nick Stoughton (USENIX) (ISO/Chair's appointment) > Matt Taggart (HP) (Futures) > Mats Wichmann (Intel) (Written Spec) > Andrew Josey (The Open Group) (Test Suite) > Stuart Anderson (Chair's appointment) > > I notice that the LSB charter is no longer available at its well-known > location (www.linuxbase.org/policy/charter.html). [Please can we have it > restored?] However, I checked a personal copy of the charter, and while > the addition of the three members you have already added appears to be > completely fine according to our agreed rules, the addition of others > may be limited to "A representative of developers of current or intended > LSB conforming applications." ... unless, of course, we vote to change > the charter! > > I agree that getting ISV and OSV representatives into the WG is vital. > However, it is in the WG we need them, not necessarily in the SC. The SC > is part of the approval process. It is a gate in getting new work > started, and a gate in getting completed work out of the other end. The > SC has absolutely no say in how the spec gets written (though the > written spec is a sub-project and is represented). The SC can set > direction (hence its name), but it cannot control content. "LSB > subprojects operate with a reasonable degree of independence, and make > their own choices about details of the subprojects." > > It is vitally important to have open procedures, that are closely > followed, to avoid any accusations of proprietary-ness, especially when > it comes to an executive body such as the SC. > > While it is relatively easy to add people, it is harder to remove them, > requiring a majority vote of the entire SC to do so. > -- > Nick Stoughton > The USENIX Association > > _______________________________________________ > lsb-sc mailing list > lsb-sc@lists.freestandards.org > http://lists.freestandards.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc > -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From jbailey at ubuntu.com Mon May 8 15:26:13 2006 From: jbailey at ubuntu.com (Jeff Bailey) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1147127173.5662.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> U2tpcHBlZCBjb250ZW50IG9mIHR5cGUgbXVsdGlwYXJ0L2FsdGVybmF0aXZlLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0gbmV4dCBwYXJ0IC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCkEgbm9uLXRleHQgYXR0YWNobWVudCB3YXMgc2Ny dWJiZWQuLi4KTmFtZTogbm90IGF2YWlsYWJsZQpUeXBlOiBhcHBsaWNhdGlvbi9wZ3Atc2lnbmF0 dXJlClNpemU6IDE5MSBieXRlcwpEZXNjOiBDZWNpIGVzdCB1bmUgcGFydGllIGRlIG1lc3NhZ2UK CT0/SVNPLTg4NTktMT9RP251bT1FOXJpcXVlbWVudD89ID0/SVNPLTg4NTktMT9RP19zaWduPUU5 ZT89ClVybCA6IGh0dHA6Ly9saXN0cy5saW51eC1mb3VuZGF0aW9uLm9yZy9waXBlcm1haWwvbHNi LXNjL2F0dGFjaG1lbnRzLzIwMDYwNTA4LzRlMWJmMDIxL2F0dGFjaG1lbnQucGdwCg== From nick at usenix.org Mon May 8 16:05:45 2006 From: nick at usenix.org (Nick Stoughton) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] LSB Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <1147127173.5662.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1147127173.5662.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1147129546.21617.333.camel@hound.msbit.com> > Some to consider: Is membership in the steering committee given to an > individual or an organization? > In general, to an individual. However, there are two "virtual" sub-projects, "LSB Conforming Systems" and "LSB Conforming Applications" that *might* be suitable to be held by organizations (personally, I don't think they ahould ever be...). But even if the membership was to be given to an organization, it is still the individual that is named who acts in that role. "The LSB Steering Committee is comprised of the chair and the subproject team leaders, and any other LSB contributor the chair feels strongly should be on the committee.". And "contributors" are individuals ... always. -- Nick > Tks, > Jeff Bailey > > -- > * Canonical Ltd * Ubuntu Service and Support * +1 514 691 7221 * > > Linux for Human Beings.