RE: Discussing issues

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Torgeir Veimo
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:01 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [forum] Discussing issues
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 21:46, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> 
> > Keith already has his own CVS and can manage that as he 
> > sees fit and submit work back for inclusion in the
> > mainline tree.
> 
> Who decides what goes back into the mainline tree?
> 

Who decides what goes back into the mainline Linux kernel tree?

I don't know all the specific details of the answer to that question, but I
am pretty damned sure it isn't a democratically-elected body of those
developers that leverage the Linux kernel platform. It isn't even a
democratically-elected body of kernel developers, right?

Which is why I think the issues are completely about process, and not at all
about governance, and (IMHO) why we aren't making concrete progress, as
governance is Jim's explicitly stated, and (I think) Keith's
not-so-explicitly-stated fundamental issue, reading through these
conference-call transcripts.

> > That way Keith and the various people interested in them
> > extensions get to focus on those type of features.
> 
> What about stuff that is not just about extensions? What 
> about driver work which goes on without inclusion for months?
> 

Which is a process issue, and one that I think most, if not everyone, on the
XFree86 BOD or Core Team that has posted here has agreed needs to be
addressed. But it's hard to get closure on that when the main protagonists
are advocating "off with their heads" (sorry - bad Alice in Wonderland
reference).

I would also like to get some closure on some of the issues that Havoc
Pennington in particular has raised, around definition, which I think is
independent of both governance and development process. "Where do we send
these changes to ICCCM" is really a very good question. Because, to my mind,
this gets to a fundamental question around "what is XFree86". Historically,
XFree86 has been hugely about implementation, and very little about
specification, and while the desktop community has called for a single body,
I am not convinced that specification/standardization bodies and
implementation bodies should be the same - different sorts of people with
different sorts of interests, and rarely do they coexist well.

> -- 
> Torgeir Veimo <[email protected]>
> 

My opinions, anyhow...

-- 
David Wexelblat, Chief Architect    mailto:[email protected]
America Online, Inc                 http://www.aol.com/
44900 Prentice Drive - 24B:P08      (703) 265-1158 (voice)
Dulles, VA 20166                    (703) 265-1301 (fax)
	
Please send private email to: mailto:[email protected]