[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Roland Dreier]

I would like to nominate myself for the LF TAB election:

Roland Dreier <roland@digitalvampire.org>

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[James Bottomley]

On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 18:45 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> I would like to nominate myself for the LF TAB election:
> 
> Roland Dreier <roland@digitalvampire.org>

Great, we have an actual election!

Thanks,

James

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Jonathan Corbet]

I'm the lead editor of LWN.net and the maintainer of the kernel's
documentation "subsystem".  Regardless of what I'm working on, my role in
the kernel community (and beyond) seems to be focused on ensuring that we
all know what we're up to.  As part of that role, I am running to be
re-elected to the Linux Foundation's Technical Advisory Board.

Like many in the TAB, I put a lot of effort during the last couple of years
into the creation and adoption of the kernel's code of conduct.  Other
areas of activity have included trying to improve the technical content at
LF events, the management of the Linux Plumbers Conference, mentorship
of applicants to the Community Bridge program, and the essential task of
keeping spam off the tech-board list.

I remain concerned that the Linux Foundation appears to be less than fully
transparent to the community, and that it fails to take full advantage of
resources like the TAB when conceiving and executing is programs.  This, I
believe, is more a result of too much work and a lack of prioritization
than any sign of a murky agenda, but I have been pushing for improvement in
that area and intend to continue to do so.  The LF and the TAB are valuable
resources for our community; I think we can make them both better yet.

jon

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Andy Lutomirski]

[resend -- I tried to send this earlier, but it seems to have
disappeared into the ether]

I'd like to nominate myself for the TAB.

I wrote my first kernel patch in 2005 or so when I fixed an obscure
kernel bug, and I've been contributing to the kernel more seriously
for about nine years.  In that time, I've been mentored (or perhaps
groomed) by quite a few kernel developers, I've had my patches
objected to plenty of times (politely and sometimes less politely),
I've cleaned up a lot of x86 code and a decent amount of generic code,
and I've reveiwed a whole lot of other people's code.  In the latter
endeavor, I've tried to pass the mentoring mentality on -- I do my
best to treat problematic patches as an opportunity to help their
authors improve the patches and their own knowledge of the kernel.

I've been a member of the security@kernel.org list for several years,
and, for better or for worse, I was heavily involved in the very early
Meltdown mes^Wcoordination effort as well as some other less well
publicized cross-vendor efforts.  While I believe that the
security@kernel.org process works quite well for smaller, Linux-only
security issues, for issues where the reporter reasonably expects
serious cross-vendor coordination (like Meltdown, Spectre, L1TF, etc),
I think that some measures could be taken by the Linux Foundation to
help prepare for a more efficient and less politicized process.  I've
discussed some of these on previous ksummit-discuss threads, and I
think that the TAB would be an appropriate venue to explore some of
these ideas.

Finally, an obligatory comment about the Code of Conduct.  I was not
meaningfully involved in most of the CoC process.  I think we ended up
with a reasonable CoC interpretation document, but I find it
unfortunate that the kernel now has both the somewhat ill-fitting CoC
itself as well as the interpretation document.  For contributors who
are merely trying to follow the rules, it's harder than it ought to be
to tell what the rules are.  More importantly, I think there's more
focus on rules than the whole situation really deserved.  When I
started working on low-level x86 code, I was welcomed quite well by
the maintainers, but that had nothing to do with their following any
particular rules, and certainly not because there were rules with
teeth.  My welcome was good because the maintainers were welcoming --
they treated my mistakes as learning opportunities and did not insult
me or reject my contributions out of hand.  This idea doesn't just
apply to new contributors -- I regularly review patches from
longstanding kernel programmers who are touching a subsystem that
they're not familiar with, and I regularly submit patches to parts of
the kernel that I haven't been heavily involved with.  I try to be
friendly and helpful when reviewing these types of contribution, and I
hope for the same treatment in my own contributions.  I would like to
see more focus on this idea.  If someone reviews a patch or criticizes
a developer in a way that's less than ideal, I would rather see other
community members help them see *how* their email was problematic and
how they could have done better.  In my view, this would be much
better than merely having a process to determine whether the offending
email violated a code, let alone whether it was worthy of some sort of
sanction.

Thank you all for your consideration,
Andrew Lutomirski

P.S. I won't be at LPC this year.  I hope to make it next year, though.

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:09:32 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I would like to stand for the TAB election.

Thanks Laurent,

I added your name and summary to the TAB nomination list.

-- Steve

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:23:20 +0100
Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:

> Introduction to myself for the presentation:

Thanks Pavel,

I added your name to the Nomination list with your summary.

-- Steve

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hello,

I would like to stand for the TAB election.

Governance and conduct have recently become a very hot topic in our community. 
Only the timing should have caught us by surprise, as problems in those areas 
have been known for a long time. During the past few years I reflected upon 
those issues and on many occasions discussed them with developers and 
maintainers from different subsystems. There was a large consensus that we 
were not doing great, but at the same time helplessness (and sometimes 
despair) were prevalent. I would like to turn those negative emotions into 
positive actions to help our community.

While not a political correctness activist, I believe in the balance between 
freedom of thoughts and expression, and respect and civilized interactions 
between humans. As such, I would like to improve the feedback and decision 
processes in the Linux kernel to give everybody a chance to be heard and be 
part of our community. This is why I would like to stand for the election.

In addition to governance and conduct, I have long thought that our 
maintenance process is flawed. The Linux kernel has grown over the past 27 
years in what is largely seen as unique in free software and software in 
general. With my very first contact with Linux kernel development nearly 20 
years ago, and my first sizable contribution in 2005, I have witnessed, from 
the inside, the community evolving. We have collectively brought the Linux 
kernel into the 21st century and turned this hobbyist project into a 
professional project without forgetting where we came from. We can't stop 
there.

The Linux kernel is probably, in most areas, more welcoming today than it has 
ever been. Despite this, interactions between developers and maintainers 
generate lots of frustration. On the positive side, this means we have lots of 
room for improvement. Several subsystems have experimented with alternatives 
to the historical maintenance scheme, with various levels of success, but we 
largely remain a hierarchical community with a traditional power structure. I 
believe we could improve this by giving more power to developers, for the 
greater good of the community, and would like to bring that vision to the TAB. 
This is why I would like to stand for the election.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Pavel Machek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2270 bytes --]

Hi!

I'd like to stand for TAB elections in 2018.

> > > In general it's an introduction to yourself and why you'd like to run 
> > > for the TAB, one-three short paragraphs.  
> > 
> > Ok, let me try:

Introduction to myself for the presentation:

 "Kernel hackers are funny people. They count time in patch
 levels. Pavel started hacking kernel at time of Linux 1.3, because he
 wanted his CD-ROM to work; that eventually became NBD driver. He then
 helped with x86-64 kernel port and got hibernation support merged into
 kernel, which he still co-maintains.
 
 Pavel currently works on various embedded projects. In his spare time,
 he rides horses, helps maintaining the LED subsystems, and he is on
 quest to get up-to-date kernels running on cellphones, with final goal
 of running "normal" distributions on phones.
 
 Pavel believes that community is important, and that important
 decisions should be made publicly. He believes that development should
 be fun, and that honest communication should be possible on the
 mailing lists. Pavel finds it important to get replies when
 communicating with maintainers; even reply that is not politically
 correct is useful, because it you know maintainer is willing to talk,
 and ideally you get also some idea what the problem is. Silent
 maintainer is worse as you don't know what is going on. Goal of the
 kernel development should be to get best possible kernel, and it
 should be possible to have fun while doing so.
 "

> I just want to confirm that this is your self nomination. Usually,
> people will send a new message (not in a thread) with the subject like
> "TAB Nomination".
> 
> Perhaps we need to spell this out a bit better.
> 
> Pavel, either just confirm that is what you mean, or better yet, send
> out a new email to the tech-board-discuss list (not as a reply to a
> thread) with the subject "TAB Nomination", and that will also more
> likely get more people to see it.

Yes, I want to nominate myself.

> Either way, I'll then add you to the google docs of those that are
> running.

Thanks!
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Dan Williams]

Please add my name to the list of nominees for this year's TAB elections.

The responsibilities of a TAB member were a mystery when I ran
unsuccessfully in 2015, and were still unclear when I was elected in
2016. The common thread of motivation to try again in 2016 and stand
now in 2018 remains. It remains, tempered, but also strengthened by
the events of the past TAB term. The motivation is my perception is
that there is more work to be done to help scale maintainer resources,
and keep pace with the growth of new contributors and new problem
spaces.

I signed-off on the Code of Conduct as a starting point for a wider
discussion. I perceived that in some areas the project was falling
short of the Code of Conflict's stated of goal of fostering "be
excellent to each other" discourse, or that interactions were not
living up to the Management Style sentiment that "it's best to
remember not to burn any bridges, bomb any innocent villagers, or
alienate too many kernel developers". A baseline conduct document
frees us up to apply focus to wider process discussions. It seeks to
address exceptional cases and makes space to continue the work of
optimizing our day-to-day processes.

It has become clear to me that the "TA" in TAB is less about about
technical advice, and more about performing the role of a Trusted (by
the community) Adviser. Select people to the TAB that you trust to act
in the best interests of the long term health of the Linux Kernel
project. It is my hope that the past 13 years of my active
participation in the project has demonstrated an ability to listen and
respond to community concerns, and advocate for the health and
sustainability of the project.

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Laura Abbott]

I'd like to nominate myself for the TAB. I sometimes blog about the kernel
community and this is a chance for me to actually put my money where
my mouth is.

I've been working in the kernel community long enough at this point that
people know who I am as a Fedora kernel maintainer and a contributor
in the security and ARM areas. I also joined the kernel community recently enough
that I can remember what it was like to be a beginner starting out. I usually
tell people that I've had a fairly positive experience in the kernel community
and I'd like to make sure that everyone can have an even better experience.
The kernel community has certainly grown and changed over the years
and it's important to both reflect on how far we've come and what else we
can do to make things better.

I was certainly in favor of seeing a stronger code of conduct as the previous
code of conflict had deficits in certain areas. I've also learned a lot reading
the objections people had to both the code of conduct itself and how it
was implemented. I strongly believe that a strong code of conduct and
a being a community that values technical excellence are well aligned goals.
Continuing to discuss these issues transparently is an going to be an important
point going forward.

The TAB has worked on a number of tricky issues such as malicious GPL
compliance for the betterment of the kernel community. I'd like to see
the TAB continue to work on issues like the Code of Conduct and also
think about what more can be done to work on building up new contributors
and maintainers to support the existing maintainers. I don't believe I have
all the answers or will always be right but I look forward to the chance to
learn and help serve the kernel community.

Thanks,
Laura

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2018 21:14:12 -0800
Kees Cook via Tech-board-discuss
<tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm volunteering to stand for election to the TAB.
> 
> My primary concern for the kernel is security. I've been a member of
> the security@kernel.org response team for 5 years, and I've been
> herding cats with the Kernel Self-Protection Project for 3 years. I
> have frequently worked kernel-wide across many subsystems, or many
> architectures, when helping landing various security defenses. This
> cross-maintainer work is a unique social and technical challenge, and
> the topic of "security" is a similarly wide and unique challenge. I'd
> like to represent both of these concerns on the TAB.
> 
> In addition to being an active kernel developer and maintainer, I also
> bring several "downstream" perspectives on how the kernel is consumed.
> I understand the concerns of a general purpose distro, having worked
> on Ubuntu for 5 years. More recently, I know the demands of special
> purpose device vendors, having worked on Chrome OS, Brillo, and
> Android over the last 7 years.
> 
> I was a reluctant supporter of the Code of Conflict (it did not go far
> enough), but I was even more unhappy with the sudden Code of Conduct
> (due to lack of decision transparency and potential for very
> counter-intuitive interpretations). I am, however, a fan of the base
> intent and the recent clarifications: I've not enjoyed the times I've
> been yelled at by Linus, and I have not liked seeing other toxic
> interactions in the community. I'd like to help make sure the TAB
> continues to support a positive social dynamic for contributors to the
> kernel, stays up front about these kinds of changes going forward, and
> that it is not unduly influenced by external forces.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration,
>

Thanks Kees, I added you to the document.

-- Steve

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Kees Cook]

Hi,

I'm volunteering to stand for election to the TAB.

My primary concern for the kernel is security. I've been a member of
the security@kernel.org response team for 5 years, and I've been
herding cats with the Kernel Self-Protection Project for 3 years. I
have frequently worked kernel-wide across many subsystems, or many
architectures, when helping landing various security defenses. This
cross-maintainer work is a unique social and technical challenge, and
the topic of "security" is a similarly wide and unique challenge. I'd
like to represent both of these concerns on the TAB.

In addition to being an active kernel developer and maintainer, I also
bring several "downstream" perspectives on how the kernel is consumed.
I understand the concerns of a general purpose distro, having worked
on Ubuntu for 5 years. More recently, I know the demands of special
purpose device vendors, having worked on Chrome OS, Brillo, and
Android over the last 7 years.

I was a reluctant supporter of the Code of Conflict (it did not go far
enough), but I was even more unhappy with the sudden Code of Conduct
(due to lack of decision transparency and potential for very
counter-intuitive interpretations). I am, however, a fan of the base
intent and the recent clarifications: I've not enjoyed the times I've
been yelled at by Linus, and I have not liked seeing other toxic
interactions in the community. I'd like to help make sure the TAB
continues to support a positive social dynamic for contributors to the
kernel, stays up front about these kinds of changes going forward, and
that it is not unduly influenced by external forces.

Thanks for your consideration,

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Olof Johansson]

Hi all,

My two-year term on the TAB is up this year and I'd like to stand for
re-election.

It's been a somewhat stressful time for the TAB lately, given the Code
of Conduct changes that we ended up in the middle of, but I've also
found the work to be meaningful and worthwhile. Some portions of it
around process and procedures are not yet complete, and I'd like an
opportunity to see it through.

Specific contributions from me around the code of conduct have been
the separation of direct TAB and code of conduct work in a cooperative
way that also provides a second level of checks if needed. I've also
been pushing for the need for timely anonymous statistics from the
TAB/committee, with the hope that it will ease off some of the fears
of the unknown as these changes are made.

Besides those recent developments, some of the work I've felt most
satisfaction from through the years is when I've been able to help get
companies and other contributors to come in and participate upstream.
In particular some ARM vendors have come a long way in working with
the community, even if it is always a work in progress.

I've been around the kernel project for about 15 years, and maintainer
of arm-soc together with Arnd and Kevin for 7 years now. For most of
this time I've been involved in embedded platforms in some way or
other, and it's a viewpoint and representation I bring to the TAB that
hasn't traditionally been heavily represented.


Thanks,

-Olof

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Josh Triplett]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 07:57:06PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:02:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > In the broader Linux community, I think the Linux Foundation's Critical
> > Infrastructure Initiative can do a great deal to help with the software
> > in our stacks that we all depend on but that nobody wants to step up to
> > help maintain, or even realizes the maintenance status of; we still have
> > far too much such software in our stacks.  I hope to take an active role
> > working with that project as part of the TAB.
> 
> Minor procedural note, the TAB has nothing to do with the CII project at
> the LF.  CII has it's own technical advisory board, and always could use
> people to help out with that as help in that area is greatly
> appreciated.  No need to be on the TAB at all.  I think the CII's tech
> board is up for new elections sometime soon, contact the CII project
> lead if you are interested in doing this type of work.

I had the impression that, informally, the two boards talked/consulted
with each other, and I'd like to help in that regard; my intention was
purely collaborative, not direction-setting. :)  The Linux kernel
community, through interactions with a wide variety of tools,
toolchains, and userspace programs, tends to build up accurate
impressions about the importance, quality, and maintenance status of
numerous pieces of software.  My goal is simply to use one to inform the
other, and in particular to help seek solutions for random discoveries
of infrastructure gaps.

Thanks for the heads-up that the CII tech board is also seeking
nominations soon.

In any case, I'll follow up to Steve with an updated nomination
statement.

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 19:57:06 +0200
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:02:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > In the broader Linux community, I think the Linux Foundation's Critical
> > Infrastructure Initiative can do a great deal to help with the software
> > in our stacks that we all depend on but that nobody wants to step up to
> > help maintain, or even realizes the maintenance status of; we still have
> > far too much such software in our stacks.  I hope to take an active role
> > working with that project as part of the TAB.  
> 
> Minor procedural note, the TAB has nothing to do with the CII project at
> the LF.  CII has it's own technical advisory board, and always could use
> people to help out with that as help in that area is greatly
> appreciated.  No need to be on the TAB at all.  I think the CII's tech
> board is up for new elections sometime soon, contact the CII project
> lead if you are interested in doing this type of work.
> 

Josh if you would like to update your nomination statement, please
reply to this email with any update. I may also included Greg's comment
about CII in the online document.

-- Steve

Re: [Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:02:40AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> In the broader Linux community, I think the Linux Foundation's Critical
> Infrastructure Initiative can do a great deal to help with the software
> in our stacks that we all depend on but that nobody wants to step up to
> help maintain, or even realizes the maintenance status of; we still have
> far too much such software in our stacks.  I hope to take an active role
> working with that project as part of the TAB.

Minor procedural note, the TAB has nothing to do with the CII project at
the LF.  CII has it's own technical advisory board, and always could use
people to help out with that as help in that area is greatly
appreciated.  No need to be on the TAB at all.  I think the CII's tech
board is up for new elections sometime soon, contact the CII project
lead if you are interested in doing this type of work.

thanks,

greg k-h

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB Nomination

[Josh Triplett]

I'm standing for election to the Technical Advisory Board.

Within the kernel, I work on tinification, and have an interest in
embedded/IoT issues; I care deeply about reversing the near-inexorable
trend of kernel size increases, and I'm glad to see that with metrics
now available as part of the 0-day kernel bot, the problem has become
far more widely recognized and dealt with.  I also serve as a reviewer
for RCU patches and synchronization issues.

In the broader Linux community, I think the Linux Foundation's Critical
Infrastructure Initiative can do a great deal to help with the software
in our stacks that we all depend on but that nobody wants to step up to
help maintain, or even realizes the maintenance status of; we still have
far too much such software in our stacks.  I hope to take an active role
working with that project as part of the TAB.

- Josh Triplett

[Tech-board-discuss] TAB nomination

[Chris Mason]

Hello,

Please put down my name for the TAB election.

-chris