linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070130051925.GG21772@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:19:25 -0500
From:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
To:	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>
Cc:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Sunil Naidu <akula2.shark@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dirk.hohndel@...el.com,
	alan@...hat.com, ksummit-2007-discuss@...nk.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2007-discuss] Re: [Ksummit-2006-discuss] 2007 Linux Kernel Summit

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 come across that way.
Not being invited to kernel-summit shouldn't be interpreted as
"you're not good enough" in any way or form.

 > Thats where I think the
 > current model fails, even if someone has done a lot of work all over
 > Linux for years, doesn't mean said people are the ones driving things
 > this year.

Right. I see your point, and attendance shouldn't be solely down to
a "what have you done for me lately?" decision, which is why there are
additional criteria.  That still doesn't make the process perfect,
but we're open to good solutions to solve the problem of trying to
pick 80 or so people out of the hundreds of developers that make
the first pass.

When Jon posted how the selection process worked last year a few people
(yourself included iirc) brought up concerns, but it seems no-one
has any real answers on how to improve things beyond the status quo.

It hasn't gotten easier by us shrinking in size slightly each year too.
This has both positive and negative points.  Yes, more people are going
to get left out, but there's a point where so many voices in a room
just becomes uncontrollable, especially when it's a room full of
people with strong opinions.  A number of people mentioned last year
that the level of interaction during the sessions seemed higher than
ever, with less people staring at laptops, and actually getting involved
in what was happening in the room.  I strongly believe that the lower
head count was responsible for this.

The one solution (well, in part) to the lower headcount last year was
the addition of the mini-summits.  If we had invited all the power management
guys, all the networking guys, all the wireless guys etc etc we would
probably have doubled in size.  In future I wouldn't be surprised if
these specialised summits happen more often.

Perhaps one day even negating the need for kernel summit at all
(unless it becomes two days of wrap ups and cpu architect roadmaps),
well, maybe not, but hopefully it'll help at least partially address
the concerns of developers who didn't get to be at the kernel summit.

 > Personally I think Andrew's suggestion is really good, turning it more
 > towards the traditional conference means people who have something they
 > want to say are more likely to push for things.

It may indeed have merit.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/