On Tuesday 30 January 2007 08:30, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Well, Usenix has offerred to provide logistical support for some
> mini-summits if anyoen wants to take them up on it. Using some of the
> sponsorship money from last year, we've proposed to make some hotel
> conference rooms right before OL
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:30:43 PST, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
> > Don't confused KS with a conference;
> > it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
>
> ... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
>
> Something that might make sense for KS is
Gerrit Huizenga wrote:
Don't confused KS with a conference;
it is a workshop for a very, very large, very very active project.
... and *growing*, which is the real issue I think.
Something that might make sense for KS is to have multiple sessions
(perhaps replacing some or all of the "mini-su
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:49:11 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Gerrit mentioned that half the committee shows up to be dead weight when
> it comes down to the crunch at the end, so if this is the case, does it
> really make sense to keep said members on the committee? LCA had how
> many proposals? t
> If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
> attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
> that there's underhand things going on.
There's only once voice I can hear moaning about the process. The same
voice I seem to remember moaning about for the
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Some of those people have a role other than developing patches. This
is not like stock in a public company where one patch == one vote. The
important part is to make sure that the attendee list covers the people
that have an desire to contribute. Sometimes there are peopl
Dave Jones wrote:
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of the allegations
that there's underhand things going on.
Dave,
I'm sorry you feel that way, that is not the intention of it. I raise
the issue of the number o
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 03:21:35AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> with having 12 committee members for an 80 seat summit, but nobody
> seems to like to talk about that issue :)
If it makes you feel better, I'll stand down as a PC member, and
attempt attendance on merit. I'm seriously tired of t
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:48:45AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, OK, but the next question is that is some form of panel of
> outsiders still a useful feature?
>
> Previous panels we've done have been:
>
> * Device Drivers - Inputs from vendors trying to get code into the
>
Matt Domsch wrote:
As one who regularly fills a sponsor slot (though I have also gotten
an invitation on merit in the past), I don't believe the sponsor slot
people detract from the sessions. Most of the time we keep quiet,
occasionally offering our insights or challenges. Jonathan's writeups
a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:25AM -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:16:21 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 01:06 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > >> The last couple of years there's been roughly 13 seats sold to sponsors,
> > >> wh
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 22:24 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >> I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
> >> KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
> >> seat
Jes Sorensen wrote:
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k
for example (and other general no
James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
seats to sponsors shouldn't be necessary.
So SGI will undertake to step up a
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 07:11:34AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though.
> > It seems a bit contradicting in itself.
>
> I was thinking more an abstract as in something that should provide a
> short summary of the problem and why it s
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:27 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> This only works if everyone gets that treatment. It can work -- look
> at Eben getting funding for the SFLC with no sponsor representation.
> However, you might expect sponsors trying to influence selection in
> other ways -- for example,
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 11:10:57AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:16 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > I don't have an issue with the fact there are sponsors, however I think
> > KS is important enough and sponsors are aware of this, that selling
> > seats to sponsors shouldn
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:53 -0800, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> As usual, "it depends" on the content. Can we provide them with
> sufficient instructions/guidance so that the listeners get the content
> that is desired instead of just some pseudo-marketing or requirements
> list? Any of those panels (Cu
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:48:45 -0600 James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> > > CPU architects if we have a panel
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 10:30 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> > CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually
> > a fairly popular session, so
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:29 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Likewise IOMMUs.
> >
> > There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs
> > and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc,
> > y
> Don't:
> - Waffle about process shrink roadmaps.
Buy a graphics company, continue blocking 2D support and expect anyone to
even care about your hardware ... ?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo i
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> > mini summits are
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:30 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> > And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> > organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> > mini summits are the wa
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> mini summits are the way to go, it would certainly be better to move
> them on to a mo
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:34:21PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> It might be worth putting together a list of do's and don'ts for the
> CPU architects if we have a panel again this year (and its usually
> a fairly popular session, so I'd be surprised if it got dropped).
> something along the lines of
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 11:11:54PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
> Networking
> Wireless
> Filesystems
> Storage
> Power Management
>
> And probably several others I can't remember. Right at the moment, the
> organisation and funding for all of these is completely ad-hoc, so if
> mini summits are
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:18:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Likewise IOMMUs.
>
> There were a number of people there last year who understood IOMMUs
> and could easily talk at length about them if able to do so. iirc,
> you were also invited, but were unable to travel due to bad things
> f
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 08:43:12AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> > Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> > people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> > there's reall
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:51:51AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion.
Likewise IOMMUs.
I thin
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a p
Andi Kleen wrote:
Abstract of a discussion? Interesting concept. Maybe.
If you mean abstract of a talk then I think you're wrong.
Not sure that abstract of a discussion thing would really work though.
It seems a bit contradicting in itself.
I was thinking more an abstract as in something tha
> Last year the subject of DMA engines was put up, however most of the
> people interested in the subject weren't even invited. In that case
> there's really little concrete that can come out of the discussion.
Nobody claimed the committee was perfect. Shit happens.
There were also plenty of prod
Andi Kleen wrote:
Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few
days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were
not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to
present/include on their behalf.
I think you completely miss the
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we
> keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most
> important people in the community" thing.
I don't think it's inten
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:11:18AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And ther
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 05:51:00AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> I'm not too bothered about the subjects, but rather the issue that we
> keep seeing this strict "only this small group, which defines the most
> important people in the community" thing.
I don't think it's intentionally meant to c
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 05:51 +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > So far though, there's been nothing proposed at all, so feel free
> > to throw your hat in the ring, if nothing else, it'll kickstart
> > the process.
>
> Actually I'm in the process of investigating launching a mini summit
> cabal, which
On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:41, Dave Jones wrote:
> Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
No IA64 stuff that I can remember. And there was a presentation on PPC.
But that was planned to be differently with more
> Next is the issue of subjects. Last year the final list came out a few
> days before the summit started, making it impossible for people who were
> not attending the summit to prepare material for those attending to
> present/include on their behalf.
I think you completely miss the point of KS
Greg Ungerer wrote:
Dave Jones wrote:
Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m68k
for example (and other general non-mmu stuff). There ju
Dave Jones wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these days,
> m68k, Sparc32, and others, somewhat less so .
Agai
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:08:26PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > Dave Jones wrote:
> > >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> > >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
> >
> > Yep. IIR
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
> > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
> > >
> > > Well, others where represented, I was there lo
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> > > > Again, I don't recall us spending any time at all discussing m68k, or
> > > > sparc, whilst the others you mention were well represented.
> > >
> > > Well, others where represented, I was there looking after non-mmu m6
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these d
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:01:07PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> >Right, other than during the CPU architects panel, I don't remember
> >any non x86/ia64/ppc stuff being brought up at all.
>
> Yep. IIRC the CPU architects panel was all x86/x86_64/ppc too wasn't it?
>
Similarly,
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really l
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really l
Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> focus on the ones that are really live and not in maintenance mode.
> x86_64, x86_32, PPC, ia64, ARM seems to be the driving ones these d
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:30:56PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> > > Then there is the issue of architectures, at least in my book KS should
> > > focus on the ones that are really live and not in mainten
51 matches
Mail list logo
