Minutes June 30 2010

From The Linux Foundation
Jump to: navigation, search


Jeff Licquia (LF), Stew Benedict (LF), Robert Schweikert (Novell), Mats Wichmann (Intel), Jiri Dluhos (Novell)


  • Continuation of the "strategy bull session" started last week.


Jeff: Updates - still issues with getting the libchk update built correctly, don't have the time at the moment to commit to fixing the build system. Will copy the rest of beta2 packages over today. Also dist/app-checker.
Jeff: 4.1 - Mats has been doing some of the symbol adds for 4.1.
Mats: Some worries about how some of the adds will impact builds.
Jeff: Last week's call led into a little bit of a discussion about the LSB strategy in general. Perhaps we need to discuss this further and re-visit what we do and what activities we publicize.
Jeff: Robert, you weren't on last week's call, what's your impression?
Robert: If we want to be LSB, we are doing the right thing. If we want to be all things to all people, then perhaps not. We do suffer from resource, delivery, and publicity issues, and these need to be corrected to make progress.
Jeff: LSB does more than just write tools and expand coverage. We have certification, ISV outreach, continuous testing, pushing bugs upstream. Are all these valuable activities? Distro cert has been far more successful than ISV cert. On the application side the users are less concerned with a spec than answering the question "will my app run?". Perhaps the value is in LSB enforcing distribution conformity.
Robert: At least 2 more efforts of "big" interface additions will be needed before ISVs can be compliant. Java is still a big issue. We don't have a good value proposition for the ISV.
Jeff: Question in my mind is even if we get the coverage and solve Java, will ISVs be willing to certify? Are there strategy changes with regard to ISVs that we should be thinking about, beyond expanding coverage?
Robert: I think if we drop ISV cert, then the incentive for distro cert goes away.
Jeff: We do actually have some ISV certs.
Robert: Yes, but no-one outside of this core group knows about it due to lack of publicity. If we don't publicize, then we don't get more.
Jeff: So strategy is right, but we're lacking on execution.
Robert: Correct. Lack of publicity and lack of expansion due to resource issues.
Jeff: Mats, Stew? Mats: We have lost audience. Many standards groups go through a process where they ask whether the work they are doing should continue.
Jeff: Perhaps we could get all the interested parties to voice their opinions on possible changes to the LSB strategy.
Robert: We need LF leadership in on the discussion.
Jeff: Perhaps we need more independence to do things like publicity.
Jeff: So perhaps the conclusion is that we're lacking in execution.
Mats: But leaving it as "problems are execution problems" doesn't expose the whole issue or how we're going to address it. Some things are all or partially out of our control.

more discussion along the same lines...

Jeff: Anything else?
Robert: Do we still want to do the next F2F in November? Can we get some of the leadership into a meeting to do some LSB soul-searching?
Jeff: I'll talk to Ibrahim and see if we can make that happen.