From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Mon Jan 10 01:24:54 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Paper deadlines Message-ID: OLS deadline is at the end of this month. LWE-SF deadlines: CONFERENCE SESSION SUBMISSIONS Deadline to submit Conference Session Proposal: Friday, February 4, 2005 KEYNOTE SUBMISSIONS Deadline to submit Keynote Proposal: Friday, January 21, 2005 Do we need to be working on either of these? (Note that other Intel folks may submit to OLS on "development environment" topics, this is not yet certain). From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Tue Jan 25 15:15:21 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] tweaking policies and procedures Message-ID: It's been quite a while since we've done anything with LSB policies and it seems to me to be time to adjust the page. The current policy document is at: http://www.linuxbase.org/policy/ This document was intended to serve the purpose of documenting technological and work process decisions so there's a single place to go look them up. Unfortunately, we haven't kept up with this document, and it's time for some maintenance. For another view of a document of this type, see the Austin Group Consent List (SD2): http://www.opengroup.org/austin/docs/austin_sd2.html So I'm looking for thoughts on: - is there stuff here that should not be, or should be reversed (wrong, we didn't end up doing that, the world has changed) - what decisions should be added here? - what should we do with the collection of "proposed" policies that have been growing moss for the last 18+ months? - should this be called something other than Policies and Procedures - we should probably ditch the yellow color! I've included Nick on this email as well as he's the maintainer of the Austin Group document and might have some words of wisdom for us... -- mats From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Thu Jan 27 18:41:24 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Looking for LSB 2.1 approvals Message-ID: After a bunch of last-minute tweaks, all very minor, caused by verifying all of the bugs - that's proven to be a very valuable process, when we resumed making sure everything was moved from fixed to verified by someone other than the fixer - we've finally got LSB 2.1 ready to go. Unlike with 2.0.1 which was "pre-approved", we need to be a little more formal here: - I need a Steering Committee vote - I need to fill in paperwork to submit this to the FSG board The main place to look for the changes to the 2.1 spec are here: http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543 You can click "Show dependency tree" and then "( view as bug list)" to get a picture of what was done for this release. Can we please have the votes rather quickly? From heffler at us.ibm.com Fri Jan 28 07:27:13 2005 From: heffler at us.ibm.com (Marvin Heffler) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Looking for LSB 2.1 approvals In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I vote yes for the release of LSB 2.1. Regards, Marvin Heffler Linux Standard Base IBM Linux Technology Center 11501 Burnet Road, Zip 905-7A017 Austin, TX 78758 (512) 838-0953 T/L 678-0953 lsb-sc-bounces@base3.freestandards.org wrote on 01/27/2005 08:41:24 PM: > > After a bunch of last-minute tweaks, all very > minor, caused by verifying all of the bugs - > that's proven to be a very valuable process, > when we resumed making sure everything was > moved from fixed to verified by someone other > than the fixer - we've finally got LSB 2.1 > ready to go. > > Unlike with 2.0.1 which was "pre-approved", > we need to be a little more formal here: > > - I need a Steering Committee vote > - I need to fill in paperwork to submit this > to the FSG board > > The main place to look for the changes to the > 2.1 spec are here: > > http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543 > > You can click "Show dependency tree" and > then "( view as bug list)" to get a picture > of what was done for this release. > > Can we please have the votes rather quickly? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20050128/1e6918db/attachment.htm From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Fri Jan 28 12:26:30 2005 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Revisit LSB policy 8 Message-ID: remember my email about the policy/consent list/whatever, how we'd need to look at these? Andrew noticed that this was the place our certification timeout is spelled out: POLICY-008 Certification close for releases Ratified: 21/4/2002 For N-1 minor releases, 3 month overlap for distributions, and 12 month overlap for applications. For M major releases, 6 month overlap for distributions. >From Andrew's note on this: This would imply that we should be phasing out accepting new LSB 1.3 certification requests for runtime environments 6 months after the introduction of LSB 2.0--if I recall we announced LSB 2.0 certification in September 2004, however weren't technically done until November with the final test suites --- so that implies a May 1st date for this on the face of it.... === Do we want to enforce this May 1st date ( or possibly mid-march if we count from the announcement date ), or do we want to change the policy? I'm not clear how much demand there will be for 1.3 certifications going forward. Mats From taggart at carmen.fc.hp.com Fri Jan 28 13:22:13 2005 From: taggart at carmen.fc.hp.com (Matt Taggart) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:53 2007 Subject: [Lsb-sc] Looking for LSB 2.1 approvals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050128212214.1AC5837F2E@carmen.fc.hp.com> "Wichmann, Mats D" writes... > After a bunch of last-minute tweaks, all very > minor, caused by verifying all of the bugs - > that's proven to be a very valuable process, > when we resumed making sure everything was > moved from fixed to verified by someone other > than the fixer - we've finally got LSB 2.1 > ready to go. > > Unlike with 2.0.1 which was "pre-approved", > we need to be a little more formal here: > > - I need a Steering Committee vote Approve. -- Matt Taggart Linux and Open Source Lab taggart@fc.hp.com Hewlett-Packard