[lsb-discuss] Charter discussion (a fresh thread) was: Can we find a fit for LSB and Mobile?

R P Herrold herrold at owlriver.com
Fri Apr 13 19:27:13 UTC 2012

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Robert Schweikert wrote:

> 2.) One of the core charters, at least for as long as I have 
> been involved in the LSB, was to attempt to provide an 
> environment that is targeted towards the Enterprise market. 
> This is probably not documented anywhere, but this is the 
> paradigm we have been following by the actions we have taken 
> and the specifications that have been released.  ...

I 'bit my tongue' when you said something to this effect 
during the Collab Summit ; at that time, I searched long 
enough to satisfy myself that no active charter had appeared 
to that effect, nor is readily accessible from the LSB on the 
LF site to this effect (there was formerly some LF matter of 
unclear proveneance and adoption not being observed) , and 
resolved to raise that issue another day rather than derail 
the meeting

Certainly I am aware of no set of minutes to the effect of 
constraining the LSB to 'enterprise' matters, of which I am 
aware in the last few years that I've been watching ... 
[checking, none since certainly since mid 2005].  The 
'enterprise' characterization of distributions really emerged 
post 2003 in general usage, I think, so I'm pretty sure on 

I greatly respect Robert's work with the LSB (as well as 
others too numerous to mention here), and also the willingness 
of his employer to throw resources behind the project

I appreciate the LF's housing and dedication of some resources 
toward of the LSB, but a fair-minded person would agree, the 
fallout of repairs after the k.o matter that sucked in LSB has 
been painful for all interested in progress of the LSB

My personal view is: The goals of the corporate sponsors of 
the LF are not necessarily the goals of the LSB; LSB is a 
guest in LF's house, but not its servant

Wearing my FOSS and 'community' hats, I was deeply offended 
under prior call chair's regimes, that some secret, un-named 
and non-transparent cabal of insiders [ ;) ] was holding 
unpublicised (and when mention of such leaked, private 
excluding non-LF members) conference calls, and votes on 
Java's inclusion

I guess the day to discuss the matter has come sooner than I 
expected.  I think that we need to nail down "'enterprise' 
distribution Standards Base", or "ISV facilitation Standards 
Base", vs. Linux Standards Base with a charter, and so ask its 
inclusion as an agenda item

-- Russ herrold

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list