From imurdock at imurdock.com Mon Jan 22 14:41:04 2007 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) Message-ID: Hi everyone, According to the calendar, we have an LSB Steering Committee conference call coming up next Wednesday, January 31, at 11am ET. This is going to be an important call, as we'll be going over the new LSB charter, specifically regarding the reorganization described below, and my hope is that we can ratify it. I'd appreciate it if everyone could make it; or, if you can't make it, to suggest a time that works better for you. Attendance on the last few calls has been light. More on the new LSB Charter in a separate message a bit later. The current draft is at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. Thanks, -ian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ian Murdock Date: Jan 22, 2007 5:03 PM Subject: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project To: lsb-discuss Hi all, As you've no doubt already seen (and, if not, see [1]), the OSDL and FSG have agreed to merge to become the Linux Foundation. I've been pinged numerous times today asking how this will affect us. [1] http://www.linux-foundation.org/wordpress/?p=286 In short, it really won't. If anything, the LSB will become higher profile, we'll have greater resources available to us, etc., so the merger is clearly a good thing from that point of view. Also, OSDL had several highly complementary standardization efforts (Portland, CGL, etc.) that we'll be merging into the LSB effort, which will clearly enhance the LSB's value (e.g., see recent discussions on this list to which "use Portland" was the answer). Furthermore, with the new name, we can firmly put to rest the debate over whether the LSB is a Linux standard or something that has broader aspirations. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to think cross- platform (or to think big!)---that's not at all the case, as I've written more about here: [2]. Our work in building cross- platform standards will continue. But focus is unequivocally a good thing, and we are unequivocally focused on the Linux platform. [2] http://ianmurdock.com/?p=386 In keeping with this larger theme, one change we'll be seeing over the next few weeks are a set of governance changes intended to establish a clearer relationship between the LSB and the other workgroups. In short, LF workgroups will feed into the LSB, where the LSB is the primary delivery vehicle for the standards they produce, and the other workgroups build standards for more specialized areas of the Linux platform space (essentially, think of this as the notion of "FSG workgroups" and "LSB subprojects" being merged, with the result being called "LF workgroups" and growing to encompass the OSDL workgroups). The glue that holds everything together here is the "LSB module". With every workgroup producing modules in a standard framework, deciding what's in "the LSB" is mostly a matter of deciding which modules are mandatory and which are optional. This allows for late binding, which means we can move forward on new initiatives without getting ahead of the distros, deciding what goes into the LSB proper once it becomes clear what the distros have decided to adopt, and in the meantime hopefully provide a useful forum for the distros and others to collaborate on solving some of these other problems. The goal here is to allow us to be a bit less "trailing" around the edges (like we're doing with the Packaging workgroup) but without getting ahead of the distros, because nothing will get into the LSB till it's best practice. Yet, at the same time, we have the LSB to hold it all together, provide the common collaboration framework, etc. We've actually been moving gradually to this model for the better part of a year (e.g., with the involvement of the Accessibility and OpenPrinting in the development of LSB 3.2), but it's time to make these changes official. Stay tuned. That's it for now. Questions? Comments? Concerns? -ian -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From imurdock at imurdock.com Mon Jan 29 14:25:12 2007 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, This is going to be an important enough meeting that I'd like everyone to respond whether or not they're going to be able to make it. In addition to going over how the merger will affect the LSB, I'd like to ratify the new LSB charter, which means we'll need a quorum (50%, or 6 people). Again, the draft charter is here: http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. Thanks, -ian On 1/22/07, Ian Murdock wrote: > Hi everyone, > > According to the calendar, we have an LSB Steering Committee conference > call coming up next Wednesday, January 31, at 11am ET. This is > going to be an important call, as we'll be going over the new LSB > charter, specifically regarding the reorganization described below, and > my hope is that we can ratify it. I'd appreciate it if everyone could > make it; or, if you can't make it, to suggest a time that > works better for you. Attendance on the last few calls has been light. > > More on the new LSB Charter in a separate message a bit later. The > current draft is at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. > > Thanks, > > -ian > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ian Murdock > Date: Jan 22, 2007 5:03 PM > Subject: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project > To: lsb-discuss > > > Hi all, > > As you've no doubt already seen (and, if not, see [1]), the OSDL and > FSG have agreed to merge to become the Linux Foundation. > I've been pinged numerous times today asking how this will affect us. > > [1] http://www.linux-foundation.org/wordpress/?p=286 > > In short, it really won't. If anything, the LSB will become higher > profile, we'll have greater resources available to us, etc., so the > merger is clearly a good thing from that point of view. Also, > OSDL had several highly complementary standardization efforts > (Portland, CGL, etc.) that we'll be merging into the LSB effort, > which will clearly enhance the LSB's value (e.g., see recent > discussions on this list to which "use Portland" was the answer). > > Furthermore, with the new name, we can firmly put to rest the debate > over whether the LSB is a Linux standard or something that has broader > aspirations. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to think cross- > platform (or to think big!)---that's not at all the case, as > I've written more about here: [2]. Our work in building cross- > platform standards will continue. But focus is unequivocally a good > thing, and we are unequivocally focused on the Linux platform. > > [2] http://ianmurdock.com/?p=386 > > In keeping with this larger theme, one change we'll be seeing over the next > few weeks are a set of governance changes intended to establish a clearer > relationship between the LSB and the other workgroups. In short, LF > workgroups will feed into the LSB, where the LSB is the primary delivery > vehicle for the standards they produce, and the other workgroups build > standards for more specialized areas of the Linux platform space > (essentially, think of this as the notion of "FSG workgroups" > and "LSB subprojects" being merged, with the result being called > "LF workgroups" and growing to encompass the OSDL workgroups). > > The glue that holds everything together here is the "LSB module". > With every workgroup producing modules in a standard framework, > deciding what's in "the LSB" is mostly a matter of deciding which > modules are mandatory and which are optional. This allows for late > binding, which means we can move forward on new initiatives without > getting ahead of the distros, deciding what goes into the LSB proper > once it becomes clear what the distros have decided to adopt, and > in the meantime hopefully provide a useful forum for the distros > and others to collaborate on solving some of these other problems. > > The goal here is to allow us to be a bit less "trailing" around the edges > (like we're doing with the Packaging workgroup) but without getting ahead > of the distros, because nothing will get into the LSB till it's best > practice. Yet, at the same time, we have the LSB to hold it all together, > provide the common collaboration framework, etc. We've actually been moving > gradually to this model for the better part of a year (e.g., with the > involvement of the Accessibility and OpenPrinting in the development > of LSB 3.2), but it's time to make these changes official. Stay tuned. > > That's it for now. Questions? Comments? Concerns? > > -ian > -- > Ian Murdock > 317-863-2590 > http://ianmurdock.com/ > > "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige > > > -- > Ian Murdock > 317-863-2590 > http://ianmurdock.com/ > > "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige > -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From nick at usenix.org Mon Jan 29 18:39:02 2007 From: nick at usenix.org (Nick Stoughton) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:25 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is going to be an important enough meeting that I'd like everyone to > respond whether or not they're going to be able to make it. In addition > to going over how the merger will affect the LSB, I'd like to ratify > the new LSB charter, which means we'll need a quorum (50%, or 6 people). > I should be there. While we are on the subject, maybe I can stir up some discussion ahead of the call: I saw no response to my previous comments on the charter: http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/2006-November/000268.html In addition, I find the language around the difference between the LSB chair and chairs of other workgroups to be confusing, to the point that it might be good to use different terms. For example: "The LSB chair may choose to form and disband additional workgroups as needed to fulfill the mission of the LSB charter. Workgroups operate with a reasonable degree of independence and make their own choices about details of the workgroup. However, each workgroup must have a chair, whose primary role is to coordinate with the LSB chair to ensure consistency with the objectives of the overall LSB project and that deliverables align with the overall project roadmap; each workgroup must remain active, producing deliverables according to that roadmap; and each workgroup must ratify the LSB charter according to its own governance structures. In return, the workgroup chair will have a seat on the LSB steering committee." I believe this would be less confusing if, for example, it said instead: "The LSB chair may choose to form and disband additional subgroups as needed to fulfill the mission of the LSB charter. Subgroups operate with a reasonable degree of independence and make their own choices about details of governance of their subgroup. However, each subgroup must have a chair, whose primary role is to coordinate with the LSB chair to ensure consistency with the objectives of the overall LSB project and that the deliverables of the subgroup align with the overall project roadmap; each subgroup must remain active, producing deliverables according to that roadmap; and each subgroup must ratify the LSB charter according to its own governance structures. In return, the subgroup chair will have a seat on the LSB steering committee." To me this makes it clear: 1. That subgroups are subordinate to the LSB workgroup as a whole 2. Subgroups are semi-autonomous, and cannot effect each other. 3. The LSB chair is the ultimate authority. 4. There is one workgroup, several subgroups. There is one WG chair, several subgroup chairs. Such a change would need to be done globally if accepted. I'd like to see some necessary rules for disbandment of a subgroup ... Obviously lack of progress / lack of deliverables etc are good indicators that the subgroup is not working. Does a subgroup need to meet? How often? > Again, the draft charter is here: > http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. > > Thanks, > > -ian -- Nick Stoughton Cell: 510 388 1413 USENIX Standards Liaison Fax: 510 548 5738 From imurdock at imurdock.com Tue Jan 30 08:40:20 2007 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> References: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> Message-ID: On 1/29/07, Nick Stoughton wrote: > I saw no response to my previous comments on the charter: > http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/2006-November/000268.html I incorporated some of that but not others. In particular, I left out the stuff about hosting conference calls and meetings and all that 1. in the interest of keeping it short/simple; and 2. because, in my view, "each workgroup must remain active" adequately covers everything. In other words, rather than having arbitrary definitions of what "active" means (which can be easily gamed), I'd rather leave it up to this group to make decisions. Normally, I think these kinds of decisions will be obvious (i.e., whether a workgroup is active, dormant, etc.). > To me this makes it clear: > 1. That subgroups are subordinate to the LSB workgroup as a whole > 2. Subgroups are semi-autonomous, and cannot effect each other. > 3. The LSB chair is the ultimate authority. > 4. There is one workgroup, several subgroups. There is one WG chair, > several subgroup chairs. Good points, but there's a reason I structured it this way, and I'll be sure to explain further on the call tomorrow. > I'd like to see some necessary rules for disbandment of a subgroup ... > Obviously lack of progress / lack of deliverables etc are good > indicators that the subgroup is not working. Does a subgroup need to > meet? How often? As above, I think the "each workgroup must remain active" is sufficient, but we can debate this on the call tomorrow too. -ian -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige From jeffa at real.com Tue Jan 30 20:39:11 2007 From: jeffa at real.com (Jeff Ayars) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20070130203849.02c83c60@real.com> I'll be there. JEff At 02:25 PM 1/29/2007, Ian Murdock wrote: >Hi everyone, > >This is going to be an important enough meeting that I'd like everyone to >respond whether or not they're going to be able to make it. In addition >to going over how the merger will affect the LSB, I'd like to ratify >the new LSB charter, which means we'll need a quorum (50%, or 6 people). > >Again, the draft charter is here: >http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. > >Thanks, > >-ian From jeffa at real.com Tue Jan 30 21:05:00 2007 From: jeffa at real.com (Jeff Ayars) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> References: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20070130205227.03507480@real.com> At 06:39 PM 1/29/2007, Nick Stoughton wrote: >On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:25 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > This is going to be an important enough meeting that I'd like everyone to > > respond whether or not they're going to be able to make it. In addition > > to going over how the merger will affect the LSB, I'd like to ratify > > the new LSB charter, which means we'll need a quorum (50%, or 6 people). > > >I should be there. > >While we are on the subject, maybe I can stir up some discussion ahead >of the call: > >I saw no response to my previous comments on the charter: >http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/2006-November/000268.html I've not re-read these but will tonight >In addition, I find the language around the difference between the LSB >chair and chairs of other workgroups to be confusing, to the point that >it might be good to use different terms. For example: I don't know if it's better to demote the working groups or to promote the LSB. Seems like everyone deals with this 'grouping' problem by promoting the 'container' entity to a higher level - domain or initiative or something like that. JEff From jeffa at real.com Tue Jan 30 21:32:16 2007 From: jeffa at real.com (Jeff Ayars) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> References: <1170124742.29237.108.camel@amstaff2.msbit.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20070130212723.0315a008@real.com> At 06:39 PM 1/29/2007, Nick Stoughton wrote: >On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 17:25 -0500, Ian Murdock wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > This is going to be an important enough meeting that I'd like everyone to > > respond whether or not they're going to be able to make it. In addition > > to going over how the merger will affect the LSB, I'd like to ratify > > the new LSB charter, which means we'll need a quorum (50%, or 6 people). > > >I should be there. > >While we are on the subject, maybe I can stir up some discussion ahead >of the call: > >I saw no response to my previous comments on the charter: >http://lists.freestandards.org/pipermail/lsb-sc/2006-November/000268.html Looks like everything but the conference calls and face to face minimums are incorporated into the latest draft of the charter. I'm torn on these. With so many means of communicating and collaborating these days I don't know if they are required or if the "project must be active" language will cover the case of inactive or ineffective working groups. Perhaps some "from time to time"language so that if a working group contributor or steering committee member feels it would be useful they have grounds for requesting a teleconference or face to face. JEff >In addition, I find the language around the difference between the LSB >chair and chairs of other workgroups to be confusing, to the point that >it might be good to use different terms. For example: > > >"The LSB chair may choose to form and disband additional workgroups as >needed to fulfill the mission of the LSB charter. Workgroups operate >with a reasonable degree of independence and make their own choices >about details of the workgroup. However, each workgroup must have a >chair, whose primary role is to coordinate with the LSB chair to ensure >consistency with the objectives of the overall LSB project and that >deliverables align with the overall project roadmap; each workgroup must >remain active, producing deliverables according to that roadmap; and >each workgroup must ratify the LSB charter according to its own >governance structures. In return, the workgroup chair will have a seat >on the LSB steering committee." > >I believe this would be less confusing if, for example, it said instead: > >"The LSB chair may choose to form and disband additional subgroups as >needed to fulfill the mission of the LSB charter. Subgroups operate with >a reasonable degree of independence and make their own choices about >details of governance of their subgroup. However, each subgroup must >have a chair, whose primary role is to coordinate with the LSB chair to >ensure consistency with the objectives of the overall LSB project and >that the deliverables of the subgroup align with the overall project >roadmap; each subgroup must remain active, producing deliverables >according to that roadmap; and each subgroup must ratify the LSB charter >according to its own governance structures. In return, the subgroup >chair will have a seat on the LSB steering committee." > >To me this makes it clear: >1. That subgroups are subordinate to the LSB workgroup as a whole >2. Subgroups are semi-autonomous, and cannot effect each other. >3. The LSB chair is the ultimate authority. >4. There is one workgroup, several subgroups. There is one WG chair, >several subgroup chairs. > >Such a change would need to be done globally if accepted. > >I'd like to see some necessary rules for disbandment of a subgroup ... >Obviously lack of progress / lack of deliverables etc are good >indicators that the subgroup is not working. Does a subgroup need to >meet? How often? > > > Again, the draft charter is here: > > http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -ian > > >-- >Nick Stoughton Cell: 510 388 1413 >USENIX Standards Liaison Fax: 510 548 5738 > >_______________________________________________ >lsb-sc mailing list >lsb-sc@lists.freestandards.org >http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-sc From mats.d.wichmann at intel.com Wed Jan 31 06:32:30 2007 From: mats.d.wichmann at intel.com (Wichmann, Mats D) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20070130212723.0315a008@real.com> Message-ID: <3F62CBEE02D6404E98C65934617EB582018DCD8F@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> >Looks like everything but the conference calls and face to face >minimums are incorporated into the latest draft of the charter. I'm >torn on these. With so many means of communicating and collaborating >these days I don't know if they are required or if the "project must >be active" language will cover the case of inactive or ineffective >working groups. Perhaps some "from time to time"language so that if >a working group contributor or steering committee member feels it >would be useful they have grounds for requesting a teleconference or >face to face. As a data point, the old charter grew the rather specific language about face to face meetings in response to requests for predictability (travel budgeting, etc.) from some participants; the reason there was such an F2F requirement at all was in support of openness - there'd always be at least one time a year when it wasn't just list and conference calls and everybody could come together and if need be, question the workgroup's activities. Experience indicates that being that specific wasn't actually particularly useful. From imurdock at imurdock.com Wed Jan 31 06:48:15 2007 From: imurdock at imurdock.com (Ian Murdock) Date: Thu Jul 12 13:07:54 2007 Subject: [lsb-sc] next LSB Steering Committee call (or: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here are dial in details for the LSB Steering Committee call at 11am ET (a little over an hour from now): 800-409-5512 (U.S.) 503-767-1200 (international) PIN: 33043 -ian On 1/22/07, Ian Murdock wrote: > Hi everyone, > > According to the calendar, we have an LSB Steering Committee conference > call coming up next Wednesday, January 31, at 11am ET. This is > going to be an important call, as we'll be going over the new LSB > charter, specifically regarding the reorganization described below, and > my hope is that we can ratify it. I'd appreciate it if everyone could > make it; or, if you can't make it, to suggest a time that > works better for you. Attendance on the last few calls has been light. > > More on the new LSB Charter in a separate message a bit later. The > current draft is at http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Charter. > > Thanks, > > -ian > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ian Murdock > Date: Jan 22, 2007 5:03 PM > Subject: how the OSDL/FSG merger will affect the LSB project > To: lsb-discuss > > > Hi all, > > As you've no doubt already seen (and, if not, see [1]), the OSDL and > FSG have agreed to merge to become the Linux Foundation. > I've been pinged numerous times today asking how this will affect us. > > [1] http://www.linux-foundation.org/wordpress/?p=286 > > In short, it really won't. If anything, the LSB will become higher > profile, we'll have greater resources available to us, etc., so the > merger is clearly a good thing from that point of view. Also, > OSDL had several highly complementary standardization efforts > (Portland, CGL, etc.) that we'll be merging into the LSB effort, > which will clearly enhance the LSB's value (e.g., see recent > discussions on this list to which "use Portland" was the answer). > > Furthermore, with the new name, we can firmly put to rest the debate > over whether the LSB is a Linux standard or something that has broader > aspirations. That's not to say we shouldn't continue to think cross- > platform (or to think big!)---that's not at all the case, as > I've written more about here: [2]. Our work in building cross- > platform standards will continue. But focus is unequivocally a good > thing, and we are unequivocally focused on the Linux platform. > > [2] http://ianmurdock.com/?p=386 > > In keeping with this larger theme, one change we'll be seeing over the next > few weeks are a set of governance changes intended to establish a clearer > relationship between the LSB and the other workgroups. In short, LF > workgroups will feed into the LSB, where the LSB is the primary delivery > vehicle for the standards they produce, and the other workgroups build > standards for more specialized areas of the Linux platform space > (essentially, think of this as the notion of "FSG workgroups" > and "LSB subprojects" being merged, with the result being called > "LF workgroups" and growing to encompass the OSDL workgroups). > > The glue that holds everything together here is the "LSB module". > With every workgroup producing modules in a standard framework, > deciding what's in "the LSB" is mostly a matter of deciding which > modules are mandatory and which are optional. This allows for late > binding, which means we can move forward on new initiatives without > getting ahead of the distros, deciding what goes into the LSB proper > once it becomes clear what the distros have decided to adopt, and > in the meantime hopefully provide a useful forum for the distros > and others to collaborate on solving some of these other problems. > > The goal here is to allow us to be a bit less "trailing" around the edges > (like we're doing with the Packaging workgroup) but without getting ahead > of the distros, because nothing will get into the LSB till it's best > practice. Yet, at the same time, we have the LSB to hold it all together, > provide the common collaboration framework, etc. We've actually been moving > gradually to this model for the better part of a year (e.g., with the > involvement of the Accessibility and OpenPrinting in the development > of LSB 3.2), but it's time to make these changes official. Stay tuned. > > That's it for now. Questions? Comments? Concerns? > > -ian > -- > Ian Murdock > 317-863-2590 > http://ianmurdock.com/ > > "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige > > > -- > Ian Murdock > 317-863-2590 > http://ianmurdock.com/ > > "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige > -- Ian Murdock 317-863-2590 http://ianmurdock.com/ "Don't look back--something might be gaining on you." --Satchel Paige