Linux Foundation Wiki

project collaboration site

User Tools

Site Tools




TAB Meeting, April 4, 2008

The minutes of TAB meetings are provided for informational purposes only. Discussions and decisions described in the minutes should not be interpreted as official or definitive TAB or The Linux Foundation policy. While efforts are made to ensure their accuracy and completeness, we regret we cannot guarantee that they are. If you have corrections or additions, please contact tech-board at


  • LF Fellowship Doc Writer Status.
  • PCI/USB SIG membership.
  • NDA Programme.
  • Collaboration summit - top ten list
  • OSAPA update.


  • James Bottomley
  • Dan Kohn
  • Randy Dunlap
  • Jim Zemlin
  • Jonathan Corbet
  • Amanda McPherson
  • Matt Mackall
  • Arjan van de Ven


Status Doc-fellowship

Jim is awaiting response, will make offer as soon as possible.

USB / PCI SIG membership

Hopefully Greg finally has individual ability to join the USB SIG and we're still trying to negotiate to get more people under the LF NDA umbrella.

Dan: We have a call this afternoon with folks from IBM and AMD, who are associated with the PCI sig.

NDA program

Marvell is stationary again. James will try to work with Greg to get some forward progress.

Dan: Which are the problematic HW vendors?

Arjan: Broadcom, Atheros

Jim: Please get your top problematic vendors to the list

Collaboration summit update

James: If you were going to add the facilitating more international participation, what falls out?

Maybe we should just have 11 items?

Matt: Andrew has been getting burned out with bug tracking. The resource from Google hasn't worked out.

Long discussion about the bug tracking problem. Some snippets from that discussion (not necessarily complete):

Matt: You need need a bug czar who can declare prioritizations by fiat.

Ted: You need someone who is quite talented and who is trusted by Andrew and Linus, but it's a thankless job since the people who can do it well have to step back from maintainer role and do bug duty which wouldn't necessarily be their passion and which would burn them out.

Can this be a rotating position? Hard problem, how do we get companies to agree to let someone spend full time for 3-6 months. Would take 3 months to get up to speed; should be a 12 month rotation. How can we afford to lose a SCSI or VM maintainer for 12 months? Or even have work slow down in an area for 3-6 months?

The site is very helpful because it gives us hard evidence. Is there some way we can do this with other types of bugs/regressions? Maybe bugzilla voting? What sort of changes/enhancements can we be making to

Natalie should be the one asking for changes to But does she have the skills to be able to do more than just administrative work, which seems to be what she's doing at this point.

Natalie was hired/recruited by Andrew, and should be capable of doing more. (Is that true? Not clear.) Unfortunately she's not trusted by the kernel community.

We need to talk to Andrew to see what thoughts he has.

Discussion about whether a small meeting, possibly face to face, or via telephone, or irc would help. Face to face would be ideal, but it's hard for people to travel, in terms of both time and money. Maybe a phone concall would be enough?

Arjan is going to approach Andrew (first) and Natalie and that we might need some kind of discussion forum and probe to see what forum is necessary. The message to Andrew is that we (the TAB) want to help, and will support him. We have an opinion that prioritization is going to be critical, but want to hear his thoughts.

OSAPA update

No update.

tab/minutes/april_4_2008.txt · Last modified: 2016/07/19 01:21 (external edit)