On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 09:34:34PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On 8/23/07, Andy Isaacson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:35:07PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > While I think that's laudable, we definitely don't have the resources > > > > for that, as everyone on the TAB already has a full workload. And it > > > > hardly seems worth the trouble for a once-a-year election. > > > > > > Exactly ... we want a process that's simple and transparent. We chose > > > voting at the KS because almost all the attendees satisfy the "made > > > significant contributions to Linux" requirement without us having to do > > > anything or make any controversial determinations. Like Matt said, > > > better suggestions are welcome. > > > > This is a dumb suggestion, but... > > > > How about one vote per git commit merged to linus' tree? > > > > Might be worthwhile to allocate votes for Acked-By and so on, as well. > > Because git only goes back to 2.6.12.
If you haven't had a patch accepted since 2.6.12, it's not really clear you're still a contributor. Giving various kernel janitors more votes than people doing more difficult work might be frowned on though. But I can see giving, say, the top N contributors by some simple metric a vote. That'd broaden the base. (But given that only about 30% of last year's KS attendees voted even though they were a more or less captive audience, I'd be surprised if many bothered.) The other part of the puzzle is including the wider Linux community. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
